Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

In a nutshell

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

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

The #GamerGate Points include:

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

The opponents of #gamergate points include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NBSB, NPOV requires that controversies are represented by stating which side is which without adopting any of them in Wikipedia's voice (not even the majority one), "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view", "avoid stating opinions as facts", "prefer nonjudgmental language", "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". NPOV is more that weight, so please don't ignore the parts of the policy that are inconvenient to you. WEIGHT is definitely not a "number's game"; if it were, the rest of the policy page would be blank, but there are other parts of NPOV that your interpretation ignores and which correspond to what Atfyfe is saying. The number of sources at one side should only affect the amount of content devoted to each point of view, not the way we describe that point of view. Diego (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" and "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view" and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". We certainly can (and do) describe majority and minority viewpoints differently. Woodroar (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but we don't adopt the majority view in a controversy as ours either, which is what NorthBySouthBaranof is defending; we describe all views in an equally detached and analytic way. And you certainly are not claiming that those defending GamerGate are a fringe view? We have more than enough reliable sources stating that this is not the case. Diego (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

{{od}] BLP is somewhat different in that harm and truth are much more prominent that NPOV. Coverage is secondary. If that outline prevents broad BLP violations regardless of coverage, it is necessary to include it. BLP is the one place where truth rises above verifiability. If the netral and counter viewpoint cannot be used, then neither should be used. Calling the entire gamer community as "misogynist" and denying rebuttal is a BLP violation. We suppress reliable accounts and sources in many articles due to this. We cannot ignore BLP which we are doing by cowering behind published views that do not accurately reflect the people involved. --DHeyward (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere does this article describe "the entire gamer community" as misogynist. We say that there are "issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community." Which there indisputably are. Our sources, in fact, are quoted in this article as saying that the harassment comes from a "small" and "vicious" fringe and as describing the misogyny not as evidence of specific issues with the gamer community but as a manifestation of a broader societal problem. If there are ways that could be clearer, let's do it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, we have a source that says that a large number of the gamer community take offense to the claims the press are calling them all misogynists, so we are clearly giving the gamer side a fair shot on this issue. --MASEM (t) 06:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you not see the problem of "ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community" being stated in the opening sentence and "small" and "vicious" fringe ? I don't see the sources that reliably attribute "ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny" to the community nor do I see it as a true representation of persons that make up the gamer community. In short, it's false. Why is it the lead sentence when it's clearly not the majority and clearly offensive (i.e. BLP problem) as you both have stated? It seems to me these views are relegated to specific games and developers, not the community. --DHeyward (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article is not entitled The gamer community. This article is entitled Gamergate controversy. As per the reliable sources, the Gamergate controversy centers around the misogynistic harassment of Zoe Quinn, et al. Reliable sources used that incident as a jumping-off point to discuss the indisputable and longstanding "issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." We do not state that all of the gaming community is involved, but some sources discuss it as a systemic and widespread problem while others discuss the harassment in terms of the "small" and "vicious" fringe. We also represent the opposing point of view, as Masem has observed.

We are no more prohibited from stating that a large group — as the gamer community undoubtedly is — has a history of issues with misogyny and sexism than we are from saying that the Southern United States has a history of issues with racism. There is no BLP violation in making such an observation because neither "the gamer community" nor "the Southern United States" are identifiable people. Moreover, both statements are impossibly well-sourced and not really contestable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Too bad the intro, the first part people see in the article, does not adequately reflect any of the ambiguity that you just mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence of the article details the dual issues at work precisely, while the third paragraph notes that mainstream media "focused on the sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements of the gamer community" — this clearly yet succinctly details that there are multiple elements of the gamer community and only some were viewed as directly at fault for the harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That sentence can be read to mean that the gamer community as a whole is composed of sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements, though. Maybe we could change "elements" to "individuals" to reinforce that it doesn't speak of the group as a whole? It would be like this: "focused on the sexist, misogynistic and trolling individuals within the gamer community". What do you think? Diego (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Individuals" seems to me to minimize the number of people; we're not talking 5 or 10, we're talking about thousands of people involved in harassment. How about "the sexist, misogynistic and trolling behavior of a vocal minority of the gamer community"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Cited sources

I'm sure it's been pointed out before, but the decidedly biased sources being cited should be taken into account. Q ^{T C} 11:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The GameJournoPros list was covered by Ars Technica by the guy who created it. It was also covered by Forbes. Diego (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've found bit-tech [1] too discussing journalist ethics and "the cabal conspiracy theory". Diego (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, WP:RS does not say that sources have to be non-biased because you'll never find that anywhere. All of these cries of "bias" are coming from gaters who aren't finding that this article is solely biased to their point of view. And that Breitbart shit has been repeated so many times on this page it's like a show that's stuck on UPN. Breitbart is not a reliable source because of their history of lying to make stories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we shall cover what reliable sources have said about Breitbart, as those have found it significant. Diego (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But to my knowledge [and correct me if I'm wrong] nobody involved in the scandal has actually denied the truth of what's written on breitbart.com. Everyone involved, like Kyle Orland in his article linked above, has acknowledged that this google group actually exists. If we have confirmation from the accused that the facts of what they're being accused of are true, and have reporting of the scandal both from those who think it is not problematic and those who think it is, does it really matter that the whole thing started on breitbart? This is nothing like some of the contentious allegations being made against Zoe Quinn, as absolutely no one seems to be calling them completely fabricated. The people accused are covering it themselves and agreeing with the facts of the article (although not the conclusions drawn from them) so this very clearly isn't some fringe conspiracy theory. If this is not enough coverage to include the JournosPros scandal in the article, I would like a clarification on exactly what would warrant it. Because as can be seen from the Anthony Weiner sexting scandals article there is clearly a point at which coverage of a scandal broken on breitbart.com is sufficient to warrant it being mentioned in Wikipedia. Not that I'm in any way claiming the GameJournoPros list scandal has received anyway near as much coverage as the Weiner scandal did, but just that the Weiner scandal proves that a point exists at which coverage of breitbart broken scandal become necessary. So my question to those against putting it in the article is: What level of coverage is required for this to warrant inclusion? Bosstopher (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just give up already, you can't include actual journalism on this site by a long respected journalist, but if a freelancer writes the owners of this article's view, they include it happily, also watch as this talk gets closed as any other dissenting opinion gets closed down by the owners Loganmac (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

These are a few facts that have been reported by Forbes, not Breitbart:

• Forums where the incidents were being debated were heavily moderated to remove discussion.
• Journalists took a conservative approach in covering the harassment to avoid giving it publicity (this one is confirmed by Ars Technica).
• These two facts above caused the Streisand Effect and calls of censorship.
• Yiannopoulos later gave it publicity to the mailing list, painting it as a conspiracy of journalists.

Is there something in these points that you don't agree represent the content from both articles from Erik Kain and the Ars Technica article that Kain links to? Diego (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me predict what will happen:

"It's not a reliable source 'cuz its not reported by OTHER reliable sources even doe we have multiple single-sourced points in dis article, but lets look beside dat.".

Happens every time. Derpen (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the Breitbart story has any credence in mainstream sources and it is undue weight to discuss it as if it does. We aren't going to permit fringe right-wing conspiracy theories in this article. Come back when you have a better source than one Forbes contributor blog. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

See? I told you he was going to say that. They've gotten to such a predictable level.Derpen (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But there is a better source than the Forbes article. Please read the arguments and sourcing people present before reverting them. There is an acknowledgement by the guy being accused of being behind this, writing in a reliable source that the facts of the breitbart article are accurate. Orland fully acknowledges the existence of the google group but disputes ' the specific allegations and interpretations that a Breitbart writer made based on one of [his] posts." Where is the lack of credence for the facts of the story? I have no clue why you would go as far as to call it a fringe right wing conspiracy theory, when even the journalists accused admit it is factually accurate. Bosstopher (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Another prediction of what they will say:

"well ya see, dey still aint reliable sources despite that cuz.... uh... WIKIPEDIA."

They always bend those guidelines. Derpen (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not being very constructive here Derpen. Bosstopher (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I already predicted what NorthBySouthBaranof was going to say above. Derpen (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

On Diego's point, there is no source that connects the behind-the-scenes journalism discussion to limit the coverage of the GG towards the increase in the debate and Streisand effect. In fact, considering that that was discovered much later, it's certainly can't be tied to it. This is not saying that what the Forbes article is saying can't be in the article, but where it is was being connected was original research and synthesis. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So for clarification: Does anyone object to this being referenced in the article using the forbes AND ORLAND sources, with both the claims of collusion being made and Orland's rebuttal being included? Can anyone who responds to this question please start their response with the sentence "I have read Orland's article." Bosstopher (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I object. We should not be using an individual's defesne against potentially defamatory accusations as justification for repeating said accusations. We have the briefest of mentions in Kain's article and nothing more: that's not enough to justify giving any sort of credence to a publicaion that makes a habit of publishing outright lies to get pageviews and attack political opponents. We should not be including Milo's potentially defamatory accusations if we can't find stronger sources noting them, their impact and their relevance.

Erik Kain, by the way, is cited at least 18 times in this article, more frequently than any single publication, let alone any single author. I know he's popular with the pro-GamerGaters because he's more sympathetic to their cause than most, but this is getting excessive. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There are more than enough references to Erik Kain's reporting here; we already place undue weight on his perspective of this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But I dont see why it should be treated as a serious and potentially defamatory accusation when those involved admit to the factual accuracy of what Milo has written, and base their argument on the idea that what Milo details has no serious negative connotations. Bosstopher (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it says nothing about their relevance. It does not legitimize the conclusions that Milo drew, and it does not connect them to GamerGate in a meaningful way that merits mention here. They admit the list exists. But that it constitutes 'collusion?' A conspiracy to control the GamerGate narrative? That needs much stronger sourcing. They have a right to defend themselves from unfounded accusations like the ones Brietbart is fond of making, and their decision to exercise that right should not lead to those accusations being repeated. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I just realised that I seem to have misunderstood what quite a few people have been arguing. I thought people were referring to the existence of the google group as a "right wing fringe conspiracy" not the conclusions drawn from it. Sorry for making incorrect assumptions. Bosstopher (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite right. In addition to the above, there's this source. There's also the recent TechCrunch article. And Chinatopix. And tportal. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The ChinaTopix article demonstrably gets basic facts of the controversy wrong, such as completely misreporting the allegations against Quinn — I'm unaware of any other source linking the alleged conflict of interest to Steam Greenlight or to the mailing list. Those obvious factual errors preclude the article from being considered a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Techcrunch article doesnt actually mention the GamesJournosPros list allegations. Bosstopher (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Pocket Gamer discusses GameJournoPros. I think some mention of this is relevant, along with a mention of the DDoS attack on the Escapist GamerGate discussions since it is of related interest. Both are clearly relevant here and being reported on by multiple reliable sources. We can cite Ryan Smith's statement on the matter there as well as a sort of counter to Orland's defense of the mailing list.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue with the GameJournoPros list is not that it contributed to the initial GG problems since it wasn't know until 2 weeks after, but more that once it was discovered, that the claims that there was ethical problems in the journalism field were demonstrated with that list. While the collusion and actions of those on the list might have affected the initial events of GG (but we have no confirmed evidence to show this), the fact that there was discussion of such collusion fueled the ethics aspects. So this is an appropriate point to include, just not worded as it was originally added. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

All of that is Original Research, though. We have no source to support the claim what appeared in that list constituted 'collusion.' We do not have any source other than Breitbart that treats this list as particularly important to GamerGate at all. We simply can not cover every stupid lie that GamerGaters get themselves worked into a lather over just because it 'fueled' their 'concerns' about 'ethics.' We can't include Brietbart's accusations unless we have a much less irresponsible source's take on it to draw from. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a reporter reviewing what the opinion of gamers were and coming out that they felt it was "collusion". That is not original research by a WPian, that's a proper secondary claim by an expert reliable source. It doesn't prove that the collusion existed, or even if it did was it purposely meant to silence the story, simply that this was another reaction and issue that the gamer side appeared to have - that type of explanation is perfectly fine in the context here and helps to balance the issue without forcing it. And we're not using Breitbart's, we're using Forbes and TechCrunch. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than the ars techinica article - and I've already explained why it would be irresponsible to use that to justify repeating the accusations - the only source I see that actually mentions Milo's accusation is one of the Forbes articles, which mentions it only briefly in a longer article on another subject. Bear in mind that all of Kain's writings in Forbes (which are ridiculously overcited in this article as it is) are listed as opinion pieces. BLP comes first. That means not repeating clearly unfounded accusations, even with weasel words about how 'some people think this suggests collusion' without high quality sources. We don't have those: we have a few brief mentions in a few weak sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no allegation against a specific person here that would put this into BLP territory. It's still only an accusation that they colluded, so yes, we do not report it as fact that they worked to keep the story quiet, but simply that there was emails discussing it, and when those came out, gamers percieved that as more evidence of media problems. Neither right nor wrong. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not allow us to ignore the policy altogether if we don't name the people being accused. To the GamerGaters this may be a vague claim about 'the media,' but we're still dealing with specific emails made by specific people which Milo believes prove some kind of misbehavior. And you are still sourcing this to a passing reference in an opinion piece. We aren't obligated to include every tangential piece of information just because GamerGaters think it's really, really important or repeat every sensationalized accusation by a professional muckracker that gets mentioned briefly in a column on another subject: the sources we have don't make a strong argument that the information is important and relevant, and especially when we're dealing with poorly supported accusations about living people, that means we err on the side of excluding. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that you would agree to include the content if the claim by Yiannopoulos involving living people is not mentioned at all? Diego (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If we don't mention Milo's claims about collusion there's nothing to mention. But we right now have one weak source that's mentioned these accusations - that's simply not enough to merit repeating them here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Following this, evidence from a private mailing list was discovered that suggested that some journalists worked together to maintain a "radio silence" within the gaming media and moderation of the public forums, as to determine if they could approach the controversy without attracting undue attention to Quinn's private life<ref name=Forbes/><ref name=ForbesEscapist/><ref name=KyleOrland/>. That doesn't include anything from Milo, and is sourced to Forbes and Kyle Orland, which is involved but has been published by Ars Technica (this is the same standard we used to accept Leigh Alexander's article for Time). There's also the piece by Pocket Gamer, which is listed as a reliable source in the Video games project list, and who analyses the mailing list and its role in an "echo chamber" within the industry. So, hardly "nothing". Do you have a policy-based problem with this content, which has nothing to do with the accusations? Diego (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's nice, we should include something like that, also maybe include something from this interview from the original leaker http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/29/7694/breaking-the-chain-an-interview-with-william-usher Loganmac (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't include anything from Milo, and is sourced to Forbes and Kyle Orland, which is involved but has been published by Ars Technica (this is the same standard we used to accept Leigh Alexander's article for Time). It does, in fact. You're suggesting that we repeat the accusation that the existence of this email list 'suggests' malfesance, and you're basing that on one brief mention in an opinion column in Forbes and one decidedly third-tier gaming news source. As for comparing the use of the ars technica article to using Leigh Alexander's Time pice, that's absurd. We should not effectivley penalize BLP subjects for responding to accusations against them by using that response as an excuse to repeat them. Your sources for this accusation are extremely weak. We need much better sources to justify repeating these accusations, and to justify treating them as important enough for inclusion. When we're dealing with potentially libelous accusations of the kind that Breitbart is fond of making we can't take concerns like these so lightly. Do you have a policy-based problem with this content, which has nothing to do with the accusations? Yes. I've explained the policy-based problems with this content. You've just got a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that is absurd. Where does exactly in the green text I posted above or the linked Pocket Gamer article is there an accusation of anyone about anything? We have right now three independent reliable sources commenting on the existence of the list and analyzing it (without any kind of "accusations!"), so your assertion that it's a single "weak" source does not match reality, and your analysis that we "penalize" someone for quoting their public words as a reliable stance of their views is just surreal. If those are your arguments for wanting this information removed, they don't make any sense in terms of policy, so "you've just got a bad case of" WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Diego (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If your problem is with the "radio silence" thing, we can use the wording I first suggested for the article: several journalists debated on a private mailing list whether they could approach the controversy without attracting undue attention to Quinn's private life. There, that is a hideous accusation of wrongdoing as I've seen no other. Is that an accusation of "malfesance"? (I had never heard that word before). Diego (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Where "is there an accusation of anyone about anything?" It's nothing but an accusation of 'collusion' coached in weasel words. The 'leaked emails' "suggested that some journalists worked together to maintain a "radio silence?"" What's our source that they 'suggested' anything? Pocket Gamer and an opinion column in Forbes. If you can't find a better source than that for potentially defamatory accusations, it's a good indication that you shoulnd't be repeating said accusations. This has gotten far too little coverage for us to consider it notable enough to be included in the article, and we don't have sources strong enough to handle the accusations responsibly. By choosing to mention the list here at all we are suggesting that it's somehow relevant to the topic. We have very few sources that are even acknowledging that this leak happened, so making an editorial decision to include it here and note the 'concerns' it raised gives Milo's accusations undue WP:WEIGHT, whether we mention him or his targets by name or not. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Pocket Gamer and Forbes *and a full-length article in Ars Technica documenting the existence of the list and how it's connected to GamerGate*. Your claim that "someone is defending himself, so suddenly what he says has no weight with respect to the topic* is nonsensical, and certainly not in line with how we user reliable sources. Diego (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely relevant to the topic. If we had enough sources to support inclusion, citing it would be completely appropriate. But it's not appropriate to use the writers's defense against the accusations as a source to support including them: that is in effect penalizing the writer for defending against the accusations by repeating them. We need stronger third-party sources to support inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Listen, Kyle Orland could have defended himself by publishing a statement through his personal blog, and then we couldn't "penalize" him by using his words as you put it. By choosing to divulge his response through his publisher, one of the strongest online media on tech, both he and his house are recognizing its relevance and giving it enough weight to confirm its significance, enough for us to cover the factual aspects of it through a neutral sentence. Had Orland choose to avoid using the backup of his employers and self-publish his stance, you'd have a point, but with Ars Technica as a reliable source and several other independent sources confirming it, we have more than enough references now for this fact to be included with my wording above. Diego (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No. We need third-party sources that indicate these accusations' relevance. This is not a third-party source. You have a few very weak third party sources and one somewhat stronger source from an involved party. That's not enough to justify repeating Breitbart's yellow journalism. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the line of logic I'm using. The email list is known to exist, and the posts to that list are now known. We know who their identities are. We know they were discussing, at the wake of the initial Quinn allegations, about limiting coverage on the story. That's all facts, so no BLP issue up to this point. Now we have gamers pointing to that, saying, "collusion!" which is an accusation, and we have at least one source commenting that that is how gamers are seeing more evidence of problems with the current "system". It is factual the allegations exist and part of the furor that the gamer side has, but that's it. It is equivalent to how the accusation of Quinn's ex exploded into complaints about corruption in the media but without much validity, just that those accusations exist and part of the reason gamers are upset. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's all facts, so no BLP issue up to this point. This is incorrect. Mentioning Milo's accusations here, even by weasel-wording our way around them, is a BLP issue. It does not matter that the accusations 'exist.' We don't repeat potentially defamatory accusations just because a columnist briefly mentions that they're being made in an article about another subject. You have one single source that mentions this ridiculous little scandal. That's it. That doesn't support your claim that it's important enough to include. Without the commentary of a much stronger source to give a proper perspective on how relevant this is, if it's relevant at all, we can't include it. WP:WEIGHT sometimes means not giving very minor views any weight at all. It does not matter why gamergaters are upset: what matters is what we can cite reliably. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if you guys are neutral as you say, the email leaks are mentioned now on a reputable source (APGNation, in an interview with the original leaker William Usher http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/29/7694/breaking-the-chain-an-interview-with-william-usher

Some nice quotes "Some of the members on that list actively used their platform to support and propagate a wide-sweeping media narrative based on lies and factual inaccuracies." "the leaked e-mails revealed that many of gamers’ suspicions were true" and "a grassroots movement of radicals attempt to infiltrate various forms of media and begin to utilize the platform to control who gets coverage and who doesn’t (as seen with The Fine Young Capitalists) as well as content-shaming developers into censoring their work, is the exact sort of thing that will eventually bring ruin to a lot of creative potentiality within the industry"

I can't believe long standing Wiki editors refuse to include this Loganmac (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that we're talking a sentence at most to discuss what happened on the list and how it lead to further charges of collusion, I'm not sure if we need it as other sources cover it quite well (And unlike the APGNation interview with a directly involved party TFYC, this was just one person that while involved on the list was not directly involved with the events so more a whistleblower than a party, so the interview doesn't help as much). --MASEM (t) 16:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think APG would be useful just to note that he was the one who leaked it to Breitbart.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters who leaked it beyond it being a person on the list (eg nothing was hacked, etc. and it was unlikely there was any NDA-style clauses with the mailing list, that they aren't private convos so privacy issues aren't violated) --MASEM (t) 22:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that the "private mailing list" junk was restored almost immediately after protection was lifted (yet another reason to rid this article of SPAs), not much of a surprise there. Even the watered-down version that is there at the moment is poor, as it is still giving undue weight to a fringe criticism. That the private list exists is not in doubt; that it's existence equates to nefarious ethical misdeeds is the fringe part. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But the Orland source while being mostly a defence against the accusations of collusion, does admit some wrongdoings on his own part, (but not on the part of the mailing list as a whole). " Later in the discussion thread, cooler heads prevailed and made me realize that this would be overstepping our primary role as reporters and observers" "However, suggesting that Quinn's work deserved extra attention because she had been attacked was, again, overstepping my proper role as a critic and journalist. " "In short, some of the private thoughts I shared in the wake of Gjoni's blog post crossed the line, and I apologize for airing them. It was an error in judgment." While Orland very clearly and strongly denies the collusion charges, he has admitted some wrongdoing on his own part.

Also does anyone know enough Hungarian to figure out whether or not this is a reliable source? [2]Bosstopher (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And, pray you, how exactly does this content equates the list to ethical misdeeds? Cuchullain, WP:BURDEN does not apply here, as the content is not challenged on terms of verifiability. Even Tarc acknowledges that the content is supported by the references provided. Diego (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I really see no issue with including this, as long as it is worded as a claim that there was purposeful collusion and that we do not explicitly state that there was (we do state the matter was discussed on the mailing list, but that's not the same as jumping to that conclusion). --MASEM (t) 15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the latest version didn't even include the claim that there was collusion. It only says that some journalists tried to avoid hurting Quinn by giving her publicity, and one commentator expressed the view that such conversation happened within an echo chamber that reinforced their beliefs. If someone thinks that this meek assertion is a BLP concern, they really should defend it in terms of policy, not mere hurt feelings. Diego (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN actually does apply here. By including this information in the article we are giving credence to the claim that it is important and relevant to the issue. Even putting it in weasel words and attributing the claim to a writer for a minor gaming site, we're still suggesting that there's a reason for people to think it's important enough to the 'ethics' debate to mention. We have very, very weak sourcing for that as of right now. We need to wait for higher quality sources to evaluate the claims and frame them responsibly before we can repeat them at all, even by attributing them to some gaming blog.

If I'm writing an article about a politician whose campaign platform involves improving the treatment of farm animals, and I can prove that as a kid he worked on a farm that was later found to use cruel and unethical practices in caring for their animals, but my only source is a minor one (eg Brietbart screaming hypocrisy or some low level blog who's repeating that rag's claims) then by including it, with no high quality reporting on the politician's involvement with the farm, his experiences there, and how they shaped his opinions, it would be irresponsible to include that information. Without quality reporting on whether this list's existence is important or shows bad practices in gaming journalism, we have nothing to counter Pocket Gamer's claims that it proves what Milo says it does. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on those who want it included to prove not just that it exists, but that it's important. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The "claim that it was collusion" is not a relevant, notable, or important criticism, and is pretty much analogous to the "Obama was born in Kenya" stuff. Tarc (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And the "claim that it was collusion" was not included in the content you removed, so you haven't provided a valid reason for removing it. Diego (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tara, you don't understand WP:BURDEN, which is part of Verifiability policy, yet you're arguing about relevance which is a concern of neutrality. The burden of verifiability is met when sources are provided that are believed in good faith to support the listed content; everybody here agrees that the content is verifiable and thus BURDEN is met. Therefore, including the content or not is exclusively a concern of weight. If you don't think Ars Technica counts as a reliable source for establishing importance, no amount of sourcing will convince you, and it's clear that you're not listening to argument and policy but emotion and a pre-defined outcome.

You're now arguing that we can't assess that what reliable source Pocket Gamer says, but that's not how reliable sources are used: we trust them to establish the importance of the content they happen to note, and you're instead deciding that the content is a priori not important and therefore the source can't be trusted - that's again backwards with respect to policy. It's impossible to reason with you if you won't follow the advice encoded in policy and are merely linking to them without addressing what the rules say. Diego (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, you mean that conspiracy theory which has an extremely lengthy page dedicated to it on wikipedia? Where are you going with this comparison? Bosstopher (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It does. yes, but also take note of Barack Obama, which makes zero mention of birther conspiracy theories. You can try your hand at creating Gamergate mailing list collusion controversy, if you think the sourcing is strong enough to support a standalone article analogous to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups." I think I understand just fine, thanks: this is absolutely poorly sourced material. We're citing it to a minor blog that agrees with Milo's latest scandal, because there are no stronger sources that deal with the accusations' veracity. I'm not saying we 'can't assess what "reliable" (heh) source Pocket Gamer says;' I'm saying that they are not a sufficiently reliable source to use to justify including this negative material.

Please stop trying to discredit me by calling me 'emotional.' Stick to supporting your position, not attacking those who disagree with you. Thanks. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't call you emotional, but your reasoning; that's a difference there, it just means that your position doesn't stand as a rational argument. The weight of sourcing is not based on Pocket Gamer but Ars Technica, which you have dismissed because somehow quoting Kyle Orland would be an affront to him. I simply can't understand how you try to deny that article as a recognition of the relevance of the topic by one of the major tech sites in the world. Actually I can't think of a greater insult to a journalist than saying they need to be protected from the effect of their own words being republished; implying that he is not capable of assessing whether their public stances don't stand up is an offense to his professionalism. (BTW Pocket Gamer is listed as one of the reliable sources accepted by the Video Games wikiproject, but that's secondary to my argument). Diego (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a personal attack, pure and simple. My reasoning is at least as logical as yours: you just don't want to hear it. Stop making disparaging comments about other contributors.

The ars technica article is by an involved party: if we had sourcing to support including Breitbart's accusations it would absolutely be appropriate to include them, but we need third party sourcing that treats them as important. We don't have that. What we have is one (and only one) of the accused parties responding to defamatory accusations being leveled at him by a notorious muckraking rag.

And it's not relevant that the Video Games Wikiproject sees Pocket Gamer as a reliable source, as this information is not about Video Games, but about living people. Wikiproject:Video Games does not have the authority to rule on what is and is not an acceptable source for information on living people. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling the claim that some have derived from the email logs that it suggests the journalists were working together is no way a BLP issue, because we are not making the claim, and the claim being one is being made by a secondary source, and it's a claim against a non-specific person, nor is it a legal or personal attack claim. If anything, the claim that the attacks against Quinn were from misogynyist users is more a BLP issue than this is (that claim is much more damaging and based on anecdotal evidence), and that's not going anywhere clearly. (And no, I'm not arguing we remove that, I'm just point out a comparison). --MASEM (t) 17:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

These are accusations about specific named people, and without much stronger sourcing than some columnist on a minor gaming blog we can't even repeat them, not even if we leave out their names and not even by attributing them to said columnist. The sourcing for the misogynistic tenancies of the movement has much stronger than this, so even if your comparison were apt our sourcing would be strong enough to address any BLP concern there. We're not barred from publishing negative information about living people: we just need to meet particularly high sourcing standards before we can do it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same question I did to Tarc: what exact negative accusations appear in this text that would require such stronger sourcing? Remember that the reliability of sources is relative to the content they support within the article. Diego (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Milo's muckraking is a non-issue: that's why nobody but a couple of opinon columnists and one of the parties he's attacking have even acknowledged that his accusations exist. We need better sourcing to include them here, even couched in weasel words. Why are we considering an opinion columnist on a minor gaming site a sufficiently noteworthy opinion to justify including this manufactured 'controversy?' -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every reason that the proGG side has given out has been initially presented on minor websites or SPS, and later picked up by sources. This is why we are having a tough time giving viewpoints from that side any coverage because there is no clear single RS that covers everything from them. Additionally, as we have already addressed concerns about the journalism censorship that the proGG side, this is not a brand new thought to add to that, since is about (what the proGG saw as) proported censorship. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every reason that the proGG side has given out has been initially presented on minor websites or SPS, and later picked up by sources. Then we wait. Simple enough. If these views are notable they'll be picked up by major sources in due time. Connecting this to cited sources about other instances of perceived censorship and using that to justify inclusion is OR. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the point: the issue has be picked up by other sources (like ArsTech and Pocket Gamer). It's not a minor opinion anymore, similarly coveraged as some of the other proGG points already in the article. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's a very minor opinion. Your strongest source for Milo's accusations is a post by one of the accused defending themselves from them. You also have two articles by columnists: one from a higher quality source who barely mentions the issue, and one from a much lower quality source that repeats the accusations uncritically. None of these are third party news sources. That's terrible sourcing. Wait for the real sources to pick up on it. What pro-GG points are sourced this weakly, please? Because any negative information about BLP subjects with sources this week that's in the article needs immediate reviewing. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, there's no negative accusations in that text. All this time you're arguing against claims that didn't appear in the content you removed. That's not a valid basis for a claim of a BLP violation, when the problematic BLP assertions have not been made. Diego (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've explained repeatedly what is problematic about this information. It's nothing but muckraking, and just because you can find an opinion colunist on a relatively minor gaming site who thinks it proves some of GamerGater's claims doesn't make it appropriate to include. We're referencing accusations of misbehavior against specific parties: the fact that we don't name those parties here isn't relevant. And please try to preserve the order of comments: don't place yours above another that's at the same indent level. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've explained repeatedly what is problematic about this information. No, in fact you have not, as nothing in the actual text of the last version you removed can be construed as a claim of misbehavior by anyone against anyone. If your complaint was about the content that was in the article and not some claims outside of it, you should be able to quote the words in the text that represented an accusation, and the part of BLP policy that those words violate. The wording was carefully constructed to avoid any hint of inappropriate conduct, yet you keep referring to it as if those were the words of Milo Y. himself. Diego (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

... an established and respected publication published [the] writing on this subject under its masthead. That's enough to allow us to use her article as a reliable source. We're not citing her opinion here, remember: we're citing the facts of the case. That's a very important distinction. Do you recognize these words? They seem particularly apt here, now being perfectly applicable to Ars Technica. Diego (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to explain how? That looks like a pretty tangential connection to me. If Alexander had been solely defending herself against whatever accusations the gaters were leveling at her, and if there was no decent source for those accusations other than Alexander's decision to defend herself against them, I'd have the same opinion there as I do here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Ars Technica is a strong reliable source and the article has been vetted by the publisher? How does the nature of the content published by that news outlet affect that? Diego (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, luckily my argument for not using this journalist's defsense against Brietbart's accusations as an excuse to include the 'controversy' doesn't involve claiming that ars technica isn't a reliable source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That part is true; as far as I can tell your argument against using Ars Technica for support is something like "we couldn't use it because it would offend the writer" or something akin to that, which I can't make any sense of. It's certainly a novel argument you're making there, that I've never seen outside this discussion; but I'm afraid that's not a very solid argument as it's in direct conflict with or WP:RS policy, which states that use reliable sources to determine what topics have weight and we write articles according to what they say, and against the logic you previously used to support the Time reference as reliable. That a reference has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is an argument for including it; that the source was engaged in open debate through the internet with an unreliable source is not an argument against. In fact, in such cases we typically consider that such coverage in the reliable source is ground for mentioning the opinion of the unreliable source as well. Diego (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I'm not going to dignify your misrepresentation of my argument by re-re-restate my objection to this source. Go back and actually read what I'm saying, preferably with something approaching an open mind, and then try again. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well, see, that's the problem with your argument. I've actually went there and re-read all your posts to this thread, trying to understand what you said, and I still couldn't make sense of it; how quoting a journalist's public stance could be seen at all as penalizing them just because that stance was made as a reply to someone else, and much less how that public stance could do anything but increase the weight that we should give to it as something relevant to talk about. And all the time it appears that you're talking about something that wasn't there in the article (even quoting words that I removed myself from the disputed sentence!!!, like "suggested that some journalists worked together to maintain a "radio silence").

What I've noticed is that you're repeatedly accusing me of wanting to "repeat the accusations from Milo", when what I suggest is exactly the opposite, that we remove all trace and keep the content to the verifiable facts without any moral judgement - as a proposed compromise to address your valid concerns, even when Masem was fine with including those. Now it's my turn to ask you to re-assess what I'm saying, since you're misrepresenting my position and attacking it based on a straw man - something that I didn't defend. Diego (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Using an attacked party's decision to respond to said attacks as an excuse to consider them notable enough to repeat is absurd. If the most notable source you can find that mentions an attack is one of the people being attacked, that should tell you something about how much merit those attacks have. By even mentioning the 'verifiable facts' we give credence to the idea that they are relevant to this issue. The fact that so few sources have even taken notice of these accusations' existence, much less given them any real attention, suggests otherwise. By making the editorial decision to include this information - which at its root is a disparaging attack on members of a professional community - we imply that it is important information. It's not - if it were, there would be more and better sources commenting on the email list itself or the 'leaked' emails that are supposed to be proving what your opinion columnist says they prove. All of this is rooted in accusations of 'collusion' that are entirely unsupported: that one columnist in a relatively minor source chose to give credence to that accusation by citing it in his column is not enough to support including any such claims here. It does not matter that you are watering down these accusations with weasel words. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Going by the logic of Tara and Tarc, 25-40% of this article should be gutted because it reflects the "fringe" viewpoint of the proGG side which is very difficult to document. There's a reason people keep coming to this article and claiming bias, it is because while we cannot change the viewpoint given by the other side of GG, we are failing to do a decent job of documenting - to the best we can - the proGG side. This is a case of something that is fully documentable and is a part of an existing issue already documented by the article, that there is ethical issues in gaming journalism. I cannot see any reason not to include it - the sources are fine, it is simply a claim made by the proGG side that "hey , they tried to prevent discussion of it". That's it. This is the type of balance that while it won't make it 50/50 between the two sides, at least brings it closer to that. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Pro-GG", whatever that is, is represented fairly already...perhaps overly so. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's nonsense to compare this to birther theories unless Obama comes out and apologizes for having a Kenyan birth certificate. Since he doesn't have one, but the creator of the google group did come out and apologize, it's an apples to bicycles strawman argument. Mentioning that the google group exists and that it was used to generate support for Quinn by specific journalists is both relevant and mentionable in the article. That there was some opposition to that support such that an open letter was never drafted can be taken many ways but it is notable. I find it extremely contradictory to observe that open letter support was not forthcoming yet we write the article as if all mainstream sources support Quinn as if the letter did indeed exist. Is that not troubling? --DHeyward (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if there is a small, fringe group of gamers that exhibited misogynistic attacks on Zoe Quinn through reddit/4chan and there is a small, fringe group of game journalists that colluded to come to Zoe Quinn's defense of her behavior (vis a vis the apology by the google groups creator). Everyone else is immaterial This seems to be the root of the animus. The article should reflect that. --DHeyward (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We definitely have sourced that many (on both sides) recognize that it was only a minority of the proGG side that lashed out at Quinn et al (which is important to balance the article), but I haven't seen anything that states to what degree, if any, there were purposeful attempts to support Quinn by limiting discussion of the matter; there's claims there were, but we can't say this was actually the case, and certainly not how many were involved. ---MASEM (t) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, the sourcing is pretty small, but if there is a few mentions on reliable sources, and the mailing list "proves" several complaints from the GG side, it should be included in a sentece or two, something to this effect by Diego https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=627647384&oldid=627645275 Loganmac (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Then if this is only about gamergate and the fringes, why is the opening sentence still a broad swath swipe with misogyny in the gaming world? The list creator himself (it was a Google group I believe of professional game journalists) apologized for asking other journalists to write an open letter in support of Quinn. That's sourcable to the list creator and administrator that at least one collusional item was discussed. The fact that all of our sources also seem to support that view but stopped short of an open letter is a huge red flag that coverage may not be neutral. --DHeyward (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

at least one collusional item was discussed. I think you need to revisit the definition of the word Collusion. It's not a synonym for 'collaboration,' you know. There's no 'red flag' here; mainstream, non-gaming media is covering the issue in much the same way as the majority of industry sources are. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My definition is fine. When they discussed writing and signing a single, unified letter - that's collusion. When they all write the exact same thing after discussing it as an open letter, that's collaboration. Neither would be ethical, though collusion is less ethical. As for mainstream articles, it depends on what you define as 'mainstream.' Since the definition of 'mainstream' here seems to be any view that matches the gamer journalist view, then of course it matches. Other journalists, however, are not covering it the same way. The 'red 'flag' is that all the gamer journalist views match the open letter whether they signed it or not. If a bunch of game developers got together and discussed drafting a salary scale for programmers but didn't formally sign on to it but every game developer adopted it, there would be no hair-splitting about "collaboration" vs. "collusion." It would be called what it is - and they'd owe a lot of money in a class action lawsuit. --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No. An open letter signed by multiple parties is not in any way shape or form 'collusion.' It would be essentially the exact opposite of 'collusion' as it would be an open, public show of support by named individuals, and not an attempt to suppress dissenting voices: nobody would have to sign the letter, and nobody would be prohibited from voicing opinions that disagreed with it. It would be collaboration, as they would be working together on and putting their names to a single work. Multiple people in the same field having the same opinions is not 'collusion' or collaboration, unless you're assuming that these journalists all wrote each other's articles collaboratively. "Collusion" is not 'mutliple journalists all saying things we don't like' any more than 'bias' is 'a single journalist saying something we don't like. This is exactly why we need to rely on reliable, third party sources for this type of information: you're advocating for including this information because you believe it proves something which it simply does not prove. Without high quality sources treating this information as relevant to the GamerGate issue it's impossible to use it responsibly. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, the e-mails that have been leaked are very clear that the majority of people commenting on the idea of an open letter rejected it as inappropriate and after hearing from others, even the initiator of the idea admitted in-thread that it was probably a bad idea. So what took place, then, is one person offered up an idea on a mailing list, the idea was briefly debated, the general consensus was that it was a bad idea and nothing more came of it. If there is any "collusion" here, it is collusion against the idea of an open letter. If you want to include a sentence stating Journalists allegedly colluded to agree not to write a public letter of support for Zoe Quinn, go right ahead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So you think there is no problem when a group of journalists decide not to put their collective names on a document but then in virtual lock-step write articles that reflect that document? The list/group owner has written his views and also authored the letter. Is there a game journalist that has come out with different viewpoints than the list/letter writer? If not, there's a problem. It would have been more transparent to sign it than just parrot it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@TaraInDC: Using an attacked party's decision to respond to said attacks as an excuse to consider them notable enough to repeat is absurd. Why? If the channel used in the reply is one of the major news sites in the world, how is that not notable? In special because the reference is *not* being used to support reporting about the attack, but the original behavior that has been confirmed to exist.

By even mentioning the 'verifiable facts' we give credence to the idea that they are relevant to this issue. Because those facts *are relevant*, as backed up by a reputable journalist publishing a whole piece in their news site attracting notice to them. Your opinion that we shouldn't use it because its somehow "tainted origin" as a reply to Milo doesn't change its relevance.

The fact that so few sources have even taken notice of these accusations' existence, much less given them any real attention, suggests otherwise. Irrelevant, as those accusations were not mentioned in the article.

this information - which at its root is a disparaging attack on members of a professional community I disagree, and you still haven't explained how "they tried to approach the controversy without attracting undue attention to Quinn's private life" is a disparaging attack.

All of this is rooted in accusations So finally we get to the essence of your argument - you're dismissing the content from reliable sources not because you think they're unreliable, but because they're reporting on something that you find objectionable and you think that "transfers" from the unreliable source to the reliable one. I'm sorry, but we don't get to make those analysis ourselves; if highly reliable sources like Ars Technica find some information on the internet relevant to the topic, it's fair game and expected that we consider those as relevant without embedding our own judgement in the process. We can assess the reliability of a given source, but once it's deemed reliable we have to abide with what the point of view that source has made.

you are watering down these accusations with weasel words And finally you again insult me and construct a straw man that misrepresents and directly contradicts what I've stated as my position. I consider the words I posted as a neutral statement that had nothing to do with Milo's accusations, so I request that you retract that personal attack that you made even after I warned you not to do it. Diego (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you consider it neutral. But I think that the sources you are using are not, and I think that the editorial decision to include this information - which suggests that it is important and relevant despite getting no mainstream coverage by anyone not directly involved in the manufactured scandal - and the decision to cite it to sources of defamatory information, are both irresponsible. But you are all over the place with this argument. You're saying that the defense against the accusations being published in ars technica is enough to make the information you want included 'relevant' to the article, but you insist that you don't want to include the actual accusations - just some related claims published by a columnist in a relatively minor industry publication who cites these accusations. You can't have it both ways: if you want to use the ars technica source to claim these accusations' relevance, you can't then claim that you're not really referencing them. If you're not referencing them, why is the ars technical article relevant? The pocket gamer source hasn't been 'deemed reliable' by anyone but WikiProject Video Games. When we're talking about a source that is repeating and citing accusations from a publication that is known for publishing outright lies, Wikiproject Video Games's word isn't going to cut it. It's just not a good source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

you are all over the place with this argument Funny that you of all would say that and consider it a negative. Practically all my comments in this thread are direct replies to you.

You're saying that the defense against the accusations being published in ars technica is enough to make the information you want included - Yes I do, - but you insist that you don't want to include the actual accusations Yes, but not because I don't think those are relevant but because *you* don't think they are. I and others would be fine with including Milo claims, as we think those are also well documented as his opinion, yet I was aiming to reduce coverage in order to meet your concerns of BLP implications by removing anything subjective. I was hoping that you'd be able to distinguish between negative judgement directed against living persons and general statements of verifiable facts stated in neutral terms, just as BLP policy does. Unfortunately you're not interested in making that distinction for the goal of compromise, a less-than-stellar solution that nevertheless we could all live with, which is what we're expected to achieve. Diego (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny that you of all would say that and consider it a negative. Practically all my comments in this thread are direct replies to you. Funny that you would take this out of context and respond as if I was talking about the quantity of your comments when the next line makes it clear I'm talking about their quality. I said that you are 'all over the place' in that your argument is not consistent. Stop trying to 'win points' and respond to what I'm actually saying.

Unfortunately you're not interested in making that distinction for the goal of compromise, a less-than-stellar solution that nevertheless we could all live with, which is what we're expected to achieve. I'm not obligated to accept the inclusion of information I think is problematic in the name of 'compromise' just because you backed down from an extremely problematic version into a slightly-less-problematic one. There is very poor third-party sourcing for this. If ars technica was a third-party source, that might be different, but they're an involved party. The complete silence on the part of any major outlet other than a statement from one of those being accused is telling: this isn't being treated as an important, newsworthy issue, which is why we don't have good sources for it or a good justification for considering it notable enough to include. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny that you would take this out of context. Ok, mea culpa. I truly had read that as stand-alone and meaning "you're talking too much", not as as a lead to your next sentence.

I'm not obligated to accept the inclusion of information I think is problematic in the name of 'compromise' just because you backed down from an extremely problematic version into a slightly-less-problematic one Actually you *are* obligated to *do something* in order to reach a compromise. That's what WP:CONSENSUS is about, and it's policy. See the simplified flowchart - when you disagree, you must seek a compromise; if you disagree with the compromise I suggested, then you have to propose one of your own that you expect could satisfy my concerns. So far you haven't made a single proposal other than completely excluding all mention of the verifiable facts - anything that wasn't "my preferred outcome is the one that must happen" was outright denied by you as being totally out of limits. This is not how Wikipedia editors should behave.

The information about GameJournoPro is verifiable, the sources are reliable, and I want readers to be aware of its existence as a significant event related to the topic. I've done everything I can to make a proposal I thought you could could agree in some form. If you don't accept it, it's your turn to make a proposition that you think I could find acceptable. Otherwise, you'll be out of process and failing to follow WP:CONS. Diego (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If I were to remove every remotely pro-gamergate word in this article, and then 'compromise' with any protests by reinstating half of what I removed, would you see that as a fair outcome? I am not obligated to 'meet you halfway' between 'seriously problematic and poorly sourced content' and 'mildly problematic and poorly sourced content.' That is absolutely not in the spirit of those policies. It's still problematic, as two of the three sources (Pocket Gamer and ars technica) are primarily about Milo's scandalmongering, and it's still poorly sourced, as you have only two third party sources, one of which is a short mention in a longer article on another subject and one of which is a minor industry source. I don't have to work on incorporating information that doesn't merit inclusion just because you want it included anyway. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Full protection?

What are we, five years old? This doesn't need to be full-protected to stop some petty dispute that can be easily solved by semi-protecting and blocking individual users. Relatively current events like this are especially important to keep updated and maintained for accuracy, and not everyone willing to do so has been touched with the exalted Midas hand of Wikipedia adminship. Tezero (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There was some heavy edit warring prior to the full protection. However I have been drafting a thread to post at ANI to try to address the single purpose accounts that have been disrupting the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's silly and you know it. The last "edit war" was between long-established editors with 10k+ edits, not SPAs. When was the last time a new SPA caused trouble on this article? A long, long time ago, since this page has been semi-protected since forever. The most that I see is the bickering on this talk page, but for a controversial topic like this, it's expected that people, you know, don't agree with one another.

If someone breaks BLP protocol, just remove the talkpage comment - keep in mind that this hasn't happened as often as people are making it out to be, based on what's recorded within this talkpage's deletion log. We've seen worse talkpage disruption for Arab-Israel topics, and abortion topics. Sysops have a job at cleaning up this mess, if they don't like it, they have to put up with it - it's what they signed up for. If any sysop doesn't like having to put in the effort histdeleting posts, they should forfeit their sysop privileges, that's just like a McDonald's employee that "doesn't like flipping burgers". There should never be any proposal to limit who can post on a talk page, and under what circumstances they may post - that's just completely stupid and against WP:PILLAR. Talk pages should never be semi-protected to keep out newcomers, and the same holds for any other form of selective echo-chambering.

This latest full-protection arose because of a disagreement between Masem, Diego Moya, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom and a bunch of others, who are all by no means SPAs. It's all too easy to blame this article's problems on the SPA boogeyman. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that there are several single purpose accounts that have come here to disrupt. The edit warring was indeed between established editors though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has been disruptive, and by that I mean genuinely disruptive in terms of policy (e.g. gaming the system, edit warring, BLP vios), they should be addressed on an individual basis, and blocked/whatever accordingly. Any attempt to put everything under one single umbrella label is counter-productive, because as Wikipedia editors we are implored by Wikipedia guidelines to WP:AGF and understand that there may be some people out there who genuinely wish to be productive and constructive. Yes, there's a huge load of troublemakers, the troublemakers should be dealt with in a proper manner without affecting good-faith editors. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What are we, five years old? I can assure you that all popcorn barrels over here are loaded and ready to fire. I haven't been this entertained by wikipedia drama in years. --davidh.oz.au 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Trying to make a Wikipedia article better? Shut it down! Diyoev (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I protected the page due to edit warring by six different editors that had potential BLP implications. I don't like to be heavy handed at this article, but a response was needed. If we can get past the reverting, I or another admin will happily restore semi-protection.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed full protection and restored semi-protection; things seem to have calmed down.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't have.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know who are the troublemakers, if nobody can cause trouble? Surely if anyone plans to inform WP:ANI, they would need actual evidence of disruptive behaviour? By removing full protection, the problem will eventually solve itself; those who are WP:NOTHERE will dig their own holes, and those who aren't can fix up the page. Full protection solves nothing, and you can't keep that band-aid on forever.

I'm still awaiting on your reasoning as to why full protection solves anything, Ryulong. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that the talk page itself is protected. We could have good-faith IP editors posting references for our consideration, and we're missing that possibility. Not to mention that preventing all editors to make changes to the article *and* suggesting them at the talk page is contrary to the spirit of both the project and the protection policy. The incident is not recent anymore and the article has been greatly improved, I think we could test the waters and see if we can overview the talk page ourselves without resorting to the atomic weapons. Diego (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If protection does get removed would it be possible to have the words "Please Read the FAQ before posting" in big red letters at the top of the talk page? It's not technically breaking any rules to do that is it? Bosstopher (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is very doubtful between the experienced editors looking for sources, and those that are new to WP due to this trying to provide their own that we are missing usable RS for this article. In fact, much of the issues have really died down, and there's barely any coverage now. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing the reverting started back almost as soon as I removed protection. I have asked the most recent person restoring the challenged material to remove it themselves in the spirit of WP:BURDEN, so hopefully further steps won't be necessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Want to add an additional source to first paragraph

I'd like to add the following source to the first paragraph:

Though critics claim the Gamergate controversy promotes sexual harassment and misogyny(venturebeat), female supporters claim such accusations use women as a "shield to be silently used in order for gaming media – and those that gaming media represents – to push an agenda".(source: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/-NotYourShield-Hashtag-Shows-Multi-Cultural-Support-GamerGate-67119.html)

It has been reverted, however, because "no, you will not". How can the sentence could be reworded so the source can be added?--ArmyLine (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think (although I might be mistaken about Tarc's reasoning for the revert) that it's more the placement of the sentence at the top of the article than its actual content. Note how everything in the introduction has half a dozen sources sources behind it to show relevance, and doesnt really go into the details of the debate. I see no reason, why something like this cant be placed later in the article with the Bokhari techcrunch article used as an additional source. Bosstopher (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

NotYourShield is mentioned further down: it's not the clearcut 'proof' that Usher would have us believe. Usher, incidentally, claims to have been the one to leak mailing list emails 'proving collusion' to Breitbart. CinemaBlend isn't a particularly good source for this article to begin with, but Usher is an involved party in GamerGate with a very clear bias and should be treated as such: if he's the only source for a 'fact,' we shouldn't be using it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can a watered down version be derived from the Bokhari article [3]? Also, if an article has a youtube video by another party embedded into it, does that video count as part of the article? Bosstopher (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you prove his bias? Because I can show you half the sources used in the article are biased Loganmac (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they found a handful of women who do not subscribe to the "pro-GG" side of things, that's wonderful, but it is the tiniest of minorities. I hate to reach for another Obama analogy so soon, but it's like the Republicans who consistently tout the African-Americans who do not like the president as some sort of proof that they are a multicultural-friendly party...when the reality is they poll in the single digits among A-A's. The "notyourshield" hashtag thing is addressed appropriately down in the article, it has no place in the lead. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not a lead thing. I'm not 100% sure if we need it in the body yet, but there's better place for it later. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

FFS @Diego Moya:, why are you moving this info to another location? It's the same NotYourShield stuff that is already covered in the "Social media campaign and backlash" section. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a new reference and it was misplaced in the lead. The section about mysogyny seemed relevant to the wording. Diego (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Except it says "female supporters say...". Which female supporters? Where? Some Twitter accounts? No, that's purely the view of Usher, and even he's quoting KnowYourMeme. That statement was clearly false. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So you think talking about the same exact thing in multiple places is good editorial judgement? Tarc (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If different details are given at each place and those are relevant to the respective sections where they're placed I'd say yes, that's good editorial judgement, as it means that the content can be covered from more than one angle. However here I don' have a strong preference for its placement. If you think the new source is better placed at "Social media campaign and backlash", as long as you don't simply remove it then by all means do what you think is needed to improve the writing. That you for once made a constructive edit to the article would be a welcome change. Diego (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, snark; how quaint. The article is awash with angry socks and SPAs; if you wish our time to be less consumed by removing their bad edits, perhaps you can convince these editors that share you pro-GG POV to stand down. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, my point-of-view is pro-neutrality. I only push for GG where the article is slanted against; if the article fairly represented the position of both sides according to their real weight I wouldn't have much to do here. Oh, and I don't wish our time would be less consumed, as that is not a goal of the project. I want us to spend all the time it's needed to get the article right, and that means addressing the legitimate concerns of any editor; you seem interested it getting only your own perspective covered by silencing those who disagree. Diego (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor fixing needed

Under the title "Allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment" the word "allegations" is repeated a lot and it makes it sound amateurish when reading

"Shortly after the full release of Depression Quest[...] Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post containing a series of allegations, amongst which was that Quinn had cheated on him with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson. This led to allegations from Quinn's detractors in the gaming community that the relationship had resulted in favorable media coverage"

We should use another word for the second "allegations". Two sentences in, again "The incident led to broader allegations on social media that game developers and the gaming press are too often closely connected"

The next paragraph again, right at the start "As a result of these allegations, Quinn and her family were subsequently subjected..."

Yet again two paragraphs later "Non-gaming media attention has focused on the highly personal nature of the allegations about Quinn"

Maybe accusations or claims could be used for some of these Loganmac (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's because the "allegations" are from her detractors about the as far as we are aware proven to be false claims that her romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson resulted in any positive press on Kotaku. "Allegation" works fine here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

New Liana K article on GamerGate

New Article by Liana K, given that there's a paragraph with her views on the issue, her revised views should probably be incorporated? Bosstopher (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted something based on this piece.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Her views on another living person should not be included. There is no indication that she has any meaningful experience in professional journalism and MetalEater does not seem to fit our criteria for reliable sources. I don't object to including her opinions regarding GamerGate and the state of gaming journalism, but her opinion of Milo should be kept out.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If, as you argue, she has no "meaningful experience in professional journalism," then her observations about gaming media have no meaningful foundation and must be similarly excluded. Selectively quoting her observations where they are flattering to one side while omitting her observations where they aren't is rather unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Her level of experience in journalism and nature of MetalEater as a source is directly relevant to her reliability for claims about a living person. I think she can be cited for her own opinion, though I have no particular attachment to using her as a source. My point is that she should not be cited for claims about specific living individuals.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So simply because she's critical of the one big pro-gamergate journalist now all of her shit is thrown out of the article? Good game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And "her views on another living person" she was being critical of his reporting. How is that a BLP vio?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Kerzner was critical of more than his reporting and the manner in which she was critical of his reporting is important as well. There is no reason why we should include her angry tirade against the man in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't how she's relevant to anything. That article seems to have been made just to attack a person. Also how is MetalEater notable? Loganmac (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not an issue with sources so don't pull this shit. No one had any issue with Metal Eater until Liana K made a statement about her argument with Yiannopoulos. And she was not attacked because she was critical of Yiannopoulos. She clearly points out that Yiannopoulos made a dismissive remark to her that she felt was sexist and misogynist and that remark led to harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that with your edit we are now giving an opinion piece by a cosplayer and comedic late-night talk show host with minimal experience in professional journalism more weight on this subject than numerous long-time journalists and academics. I also have to be a bit annoyed that this angry tirade against Milo is getting added in when people won't even allow his reports to be mentioned in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

How is anything that's in there now an angry tirade against Yiannopoulos?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should address the first point, which cannot be seriously disputed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could address my earlier point in that no one had any god damn problem with Liana K's statements until she said something bad about Milo.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I didn't pay much attention because it was just one meager-sized paragraph of many showing opinions about GamerGate in general. It then turned into a massive paragraph that slammed another person so I suddenly took notice. That's not unusual.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a first attempt at summarizing her position, but this should be cut down even more because it is still giving Kerzner way too much weight in this section.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the "misogyny and antifeminism" section appropriately titled and written?

I think that there is a more unbiased way this could, at the very least, be titled.--ArmyLine (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

it follows the sources WP:NPOV#UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Quinn said the campaign had "roped well-meaning people who cared about ethics and transparency into a pre-existing hate mob." - "Zoe Quinn Told Us What Being Targeted By Every Troll In The World Feels Like"

Indeed it does. I'm not sure if Vice or someone directly involved in this controversy are the most appropriate sources, though.--ArmyLine (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We cite what the reliable sources say. The fact that someone is "directly involved in this controversy" does not prohibit us from quoting them and using them as a source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Vice is not a reliable source.--ArmyLine (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And why not? It's a secondary-source publication with known editorial processes and an established reputation. It is at least as reliable as sites such as APGNation, CinemaBlend and Forbes' contributor blogs that we quote here extensively in support of pro-GamerGate positions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Vivian James drawing

Do we really need this drawing? It adds nothing to the article. Yes, we describe the character as existing but that is not enough for WP:NFCC to qualify for inclusion AFAIK.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What part of NFCC do you think it's not complying with? Willhesucceed (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Contextual significance. This isn't an article on "Vivian James".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a section on the article about Vivian as a result of TFYC situation, going into detail about the character. That's appropriate contextual significance. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but it's not like we have extensive critique of the design. Just people vaguely describing the character and also criticizing its mere existence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be relevant even if it was a free image, but it absolutely does not meet the WP:NFCC. It does not 'significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic,' and I don't see how 'its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.' It's not even central to the topic of that section, much less the "article topic." Even its rationale in the TFYC article is weak, but here it's just silly. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion about the implications of the character reflecting on the community. That needs the image to be seen. That's contextual significance definitely from an NFCC stance. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's a tangent at best: the image is in no way important enough to the article topic to give the reader a better understanding of the subject. A reader is not going to finish an un-illustrated version of that section confused or with an imperfect understanding of the issue. As it is the TFYC is seriously overlong and unneccessarily detailed given how little attention that 'controversy' has gotten: adding an illustration just takes us further into undue weight. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be informative to let people see what the misogynists have created. I'd prefer to use the picture of Vivian in the crowd with the cellphones, but this works, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the article hurt without it though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, without the image, people who read this article and who don't already know the character wouldn't recognize it if they find it over the internet. Identification of visual items is an accepted reason for including images; and as you say, there isn't an article about Vivian James at Wikipedia where the image would be more relevant than here (yes, there's TFYC, but it's equally relevant there). Diego (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the NFCC discussion? Because they don't seem to agree. If this image were only being used in this article, it would have been deleted by now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

To Diego: But it has nothing to do with this article in particular. The character is discussed. But it's not about the character's design or visual themes. It's just that the character exists. This just seems like you want to keep the image on the site so it doesn't get deleted for being an orphaned fair use image TBH.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not taking sides on whether the image should be kept or not, but the image caption can't just be "Vivian James". Be more obvious.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Even with TDA's expansion of the caption, the image is completely out of place on the article. This is about the whole of gamergate and there's no relevance to include this non-free image of unknown authorship on this particular article. I'd suggest we include photographs of the actual people involved (photos of Quinn and Sarkeesian have both been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons), but that just might piss off the legion of people who are mad at me on Twitter for being too vocal on this very page. This drawing's inclusion here is simply for the sake of having it next to a vague description of it existing. We do not need to have the artwork of unknown provenance looking dour next to text that explains TFYC's dispute with Zoe Quinn, the hacking attempt, and criticism of the mere existence of the character, only one of which includes anything regarding the character's actual visual design elements. Again, File:Vivian James.jpg has no place on this page. It only vaguely has a place on The Fine Young Capitalists article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya, the "identification" that you're claiming is not one of the criteria of WP:NFCC. It's only a vague requirement for if there is an article solely about the subject of the image. The drawing of Vivian James is not inherently relevant to the discussion of gamergate as a whole. It's an image for the sake of having an image on this page. Having this massive drawing accompany text that basically attacks its mere existence is not contextual significance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a direct NFCC criterion, but it's a common outcome recognized by NFCI. If the problem is the size of the image, it can be made smaller with ease. Diego (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

But like it's not inherently important to feature on this page. The only thing it adds to the page is an image that satisfies the Gamergate crowd because I can assure you that if we put a free photo of Anita or Zoe here (which we are completely capable of doing even if the one photo we have of Quinn is her drinking beer at some game conference) they would flip their collective shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If Vivian was just mentioned "Oh, they created a mascot", then NFCI would not apply to allowing its use here. However, because there is discussion of why the character was created and some thoughts from other sources about that, then it does pass; it is very relevant to GamerGate even if it represents the proGG side of things - including a free pic of Zoe or Anita would just as much balance it the other way (not that I'm saying we can't). NFCC would allow this image, and the only editorial reason being given to not include seems to be "I don't like it" type statements. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

the only editorial reason being given to not include seems to be "I don't like it" type statements. This is a completely inappropriate mischaracterization. By your logic most Wikipeida articles would be peppered with images every few line, each time a new subject came up. Even if this were a free image it would not be important enough to merit inclusion. It's purely decorative here, not illustrative: looking at Vivian James does not enhance the reader's understanding of GamerGate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Having been in NFCR enforcement for years, this image has a lot more reason to include than many others that skimp by on weak rationales. There is sourced discussion about the image, that immediately makes it "important" enough to consider for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the image's discussion I'd say that the uninvolved contributors don't agree that this image's NFCC rationale for this article passes muster, though. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It does past muster, and that's speaking from a purely NFCC manner, this part is not up for question. Now we are not required to include it because it passes NFCC, but I'm also not see any reason not to include this if we also include photos of the people also affected, to balance that out. (And I'm speaking as someone that I do not side with proGG part of the situation, but can tell there's an effort here to try to delegitimize any proGG argument by some editors here and we need to work the balance a lot better within the allowances WP lets us). --MASEM (t) 06:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

:It does past muster, and that's speaking from a purely NFCC manner, this part is not up for question. The uninvolved editors in the image's NFCC discussion who are supporting its use seem to be supporting its use only in the TFYC article: at least one explicitly mentions that it's good and appropriate that the image has been removed from this one. That's because this image is not important enough to the issue being discussed (GamerGate, not Vivian James) to merit inclusion. There are only a very few sources that even mention her. That's important here.

Now we are not required to include it because it passes NFCC, but I'm also not see any reason not to include this if we also include photos of the people also affected, to balance that out. "Balance it out?" This is just silly. Photos of others affected would not add to the readers' understanding of the article, either. They'd be purely decorative, just as this one would, and if we included photos of every figure as relevant to the issue as Vivian James (and that's a pretty low bar) this article would be a mess, NFCC aside. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

NFCC does not require an article to be solely dedicated to a specific topic to use an image of that topic in the article, and since the characters is now strongly tied to GG, it is very relevant here. Also, we should be looking to add images, free ones at least, as per MOS we should not be a wall of text. The most reasonably likely ones that we have are those of Zoe and Anita which are the two most relevant figures here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the Vivian James drawing is not relevant to the whole of gamergate or this page. Not to mention we do not discuss the character that much to have it feature at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she's 'tied' to GamerGate, just as a living individual only notable for their role in GamerGate would be in a WP:BLP1E sense. But that doesn't mean that she's so important to GamerGate that an image of her in this article passes NFCC: it only means that GamerGate is important to her notability. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article by Vice.com discussing the character and its GamerGate origins. Never seen Vice.com before though so I don't know if it is reliable. The picture definitely helps recognizability, at least. starship.paint ~ regal 23:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You could say that about literally every person or entity mentioned in this article. Why is it so important that readers recognize Vivian James if they see her elsewhere without a caption. Why is this recognition so crucial that we can't leave it to the curious to google her for themselves? Would you support including images of every woman victimized by this movement's harassment? Of every journalist quoted and every game dev whose work is mentioned? Even without NFCC concerns to consider, we don't take the time to depict every person, character, building, street sign and landmark mentioned in every Wikipedia article. And when there are NFCC concerns, inclusion criteria are even stricter. What's so important about Vivian James, when she's scarcely mentioned in the sources we have on this issue? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Vivian James is even more important because she is a direct creation of GamerGate, whereas naturally none of the real people have such a claim. Anyway, I don't object to having pictures of the major figures within GamerGate. Quinn definitely. Sarkeesian perhaps. See whose name keeps popping up within the article as a subject. starship.paint ~ regal 00:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

She was created collectively by the gamergate hive mind? Or she was drawn by someone who wanted to prove something about GamerGate? You think perhaps Sarkeesian might be as important to GamerGate as Vivian James? Doing a Google news search, Sarkeesian gets 270+ hits to Vivian James's' three. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant, perhaps we should include a picture of Sarkeesian. Since I even bothered to mention Sarkeesian, you should understand that I am quite in favour of including Sarkeesian's picture. Just not as definitely as I would support Quinn's picture. Also, it doesn't really matter who created it, the important thing is VJ was created due to GamerGate. starship.paint ~ regal 01:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a justification for Gamergate being important to Vivian James, not for Vivian James being important to GamerGate. We have very few sources that even mention her in relation to Gamergate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The image is relevant to the TFYC article; it's their image, their conception about some sort of fictionalized "everygirl gamer", like a spectrum opposite of manic pixie dream girl. It's not real, and has really nothing to do with Gamergate. Tarc (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not only in favour of deleting the image, I'd go as far as saying the entire TFYC section is a big blob of WP:UNDUE that should either be stubbed or deleted. Artw (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Useful source

Iowa Public Radio conducted an 45-minute discussion of Gamergate yesterday with three academics who study video game culture, journalism and psychology. Available here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief article from CBC on the issues (not seeing anything immediately useful/new) [4] --MASEM (t) 18:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Anybody opposed to keeping track of GG using this?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thought this might benefit both sides: the person who runs this site tracks links to news sources (usable and unusable here) and Tweets and archives forums. <redact per BLP>

We can't use his link, obviously, but I thought it might be useful to keep track of sources he catalogues as he consolidates everything in relation to the controversy. From there, you guys could decide which of his links to use and which ones aren't reliable. Hope it helps. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a useful link, chock-full of allegations/assertions/aspersions about living people and wholly unhelpful in creating a reliably-sourced article about the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Right...I wasn't asking to use the link to back up a sentence in the article. I was saying that you guys might eventually be able to use it to pull useful RS links from time to time. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So, fresh off a 24h block for posting links to BLP-violating material, you come here and post...another link to BLP-violating material? I think the next one's gonna be a wee bit longer than 24h, bro. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to post BLP-violating stuff. I'm not insinuating or accusing anyone of anything. I thought you might be able to pull stuff from that site that would help build the article. I was asked to be more constructive and I'm trying to be. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intel pulls ads off Gamasutra

Since this is major it should have a mention next to the lines explaining what the movement accomplished (The Escapist policy changes, etc)

This is still a heavily biased article but it mentions the matter http://www.dailydot.com/geek/intel-pulls-ads-from-gamasutra/#

This I don't know if it's reliable, and there's a conlifct of interest stated in the article itself, Leigh Alexander of Gamasutra works for them http://boingboing.net/2014/10/01/gamergateintel.html

This site I never heard of but apparently it's a site covering advertising http://adland.tv/adnews/intel-has-gamers-inside-pulls-advertising-gamasutra/251869514

We'll probably have to wait for more sources though I'm sure Loganmac (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you gaters stop kvetching about Leigh Alexander and how you think she's biased? Jesus fucking Christ.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum but I'm not saying she's biased, I'm saying the site is biased because Leigh works for them, which they say so Loganmac (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, how many sources does people need to acknowledge that Intel has withdrawn their ads from Gamasutra? It has happened because of Gamergate. It does not need to be analyzed and discussed. It is a fact! Just write a sentence that says that.--Torga (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Right now, I'm not sure if this is appropriate to include yet. It's a "deduction" by weak RS that this is tied to GG - see "We can deduce from that statement that the promised boycott I wrote about in #gamergate - insulting consumers shrinks the market is very much on" from adland.tv (which is not an RS here). They pulled ads, that might be factual, but we have no idea why outside of responding to feedback from its customers. We cannot make the leap of logic that this was due to Alexander working for Gamasutra. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To add, I mean if I were using Occum's Razor, yes, the reason they pulled the ads is to to Op Disrespectful Nod, but we cannot employ that here, and neither DD or adland.tv are sources we can used to justify that. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Going off source here but noone thinks they pulled because of Alexander, but because of those Gamers are dead articles, I've seen 3 emails and they all mention "shift in editorial content" and "recent controversial articles". You're right that we need more sources though. Loganmac (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The shift in editorial content is a result of Alexander, as she's the EIC, so ... Willhesucceed (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Dont know if reliable though. http://imgur.com/h5WqpM1 --Torga (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you need sites reporting on it.

Here's an Austrian national newspaper Der Standard http://derstandard.at/2000006322120/Gamergate-Unterstuetzer-setzen-kritische-Journalisten-und-Werber-unter-Druck been in publication since 1988, online version since 1995, since 2005 the paper has been cooperating with The New York Times Loganmac (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A German language newspaper is not really optimal for sourcing for the English Wikipedia, but I laud your efforts in going out of your way to find it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It may not be "optimal", but it's usable. En.wikipedia is an international project. That the news is written in German merely entails that an editor proficient in German language confirms that our coverage within the article is directly supported by the meaning of the original text, per WP:RSUE. Diego (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading the translated version, we're still stuck on the presumption that it was specifically 1) the Alexander piece and 2) the actions of the Disrespectful Nod campaign that led to this; it's the leap of logic. I would say it is usable to say that the proGG side has taken a cause to try to get advertizers to pull from specific sites that reported negatively towards the proGG side of the GG events via Operation Disrespectful Nod, though if we need to include that I don't know. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If the likes of Intel are in effect supporting the misogynist harassment campaign by withdrawing ads from sites that condemn the harassers, then sure, I'd love to see that included in the article. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

...preferably with a more neutral wording. This has to be the first time I agree with Tarc in this topic. Diego (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the bias here , because that's not the articles that are triggering this backlash by gamers - it is the ones that that side considered "disrespectful" of the stereotypical gamer, particularly the ones that are vocal and, importantly, not necessarily the ones that got involved in harassment. Eg: Alexander's piece wasn't so more on the harassment, but the fact a large # of gamers were insulted by how Alexander wrote for this. (eg "‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games." from [5] is clearly not a statement that would be fair if you were proGG - and if you notice, it is not tagged as an opinion piece nor does GS have an editorial statement. I may not agree with the viewpoint of proGG but I also can see that that article raises a lot of issues if one was part of that camp). Again, there's a lot of speculation we can't include, but we cannot state that Intel is supporting the misogynist side even if they do affirm they removed ads due to Alexander's piece. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously we'd have top wait for reliable sources to begin to characterize Intel's actions as such, but when/if they do, that characterization would be quite article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another source has come out [6]. Bosstopher (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is good enough now to add in that Operation Disrespectful Nod exists and it's purpose, but that's all we can say now. Even that Verge article is making a leap of logic (the most obvious one, yes), to why Intel pulled. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: do we think we can say "In October 2014, Intel pulled its advertising from Gamasutra, citing feedback from its consumers on controversial pieces published on that site; some media sites like The Verge believed this was in direct response to Operation Disrespectful Nod". (emphasis here for the key wording to prevent bias and OR). --MASEM (t) 16:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If we feel that we still have to qualify that by attributing it to a particular source, we should probably leave it out for now and wait for a more formal statement. Several articles have referenced statements from an Intel spokesperson, so I wouldn't call this pure speculation, but it can't hurt to give them a little time to let the issue make its way higher up the chain of command before we assume that's the company's stance. Verge and BoingBoing have the most detailed articles I've seen so far, but I doubt the information that's out there now is all that we're going to get on the question. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tara on this. If Intel isn't forthcoming, then we can eventually do the attribution. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Re/code is now reporting on it as well. There is also a report in Computer Business Review (www.cbronline.com/news/tech/cio-agenda/the-boardroom/intel-pulls-ads-from-tech-website-after-gamergate-pressure-4392798), but the site is apparently on the blacklist due to editors trying to spam it on Wikipedia years ago. We might consider white-listing the specific article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Recode is the original source of the news from what I can tell, and so while not an RS it is reported in others. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were either the first or one of the first to publish the story, but we do have other stronger sources for it already. There's really no reason to request whitelisting of the CBR article, because they're not difficult to replace as a source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

How is Re/code not a reliable source exactly?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree to this, sounds neutral. Although readers might be left wondering what that Operation is, you either don't include it, or explain it a little Loganmac (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop posting your responses in front of those from other people, FFS. I had to move this out from in front of TaraInDC's comment on 16:28, 2 October 2014.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It was my first time, no need to be rude Loganmac (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

More sources if they're needed http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/intel-folds-under-gamergate-pressure-pulls-ads-from-gamasutra/

According to media Intel are misogynist pretty much lol

Also for some reason a lot of Austrian/German sites are reporting on it, doubt any of these are reliable https://www.google.com/search?q="Gamergate"%3A+Intel+beendet+Werbekampagne

Ars Technica mentions 4chan has banned discussion of the topic by the way, don't know if that's important Loganmac (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This was added to the article

"Rich McCormick of The Verge decried Intel's decision to cave to what he called "co-ordinated strikes" to silence voices calling for diversity in gaming, writing, "By giving in to its demands and pulling its advertising from Gamasutra, Intel has legitimized a movement that has shown itself to be anti-feminist, violently protectionist, and totally unwilling to share what it sees as its divine right to video games."

I don't see how a single guy's opinion on The Verge is relevant or important, the anti-feminist side has enough weight already as Masem agreed. We don't need to look up opinions of everything that happens, this way everything gets twisted. A neutral statement is all that's needed. I intended to add something similar to what Masem suggested and noone opposed "In October 2014, Intel pulled its advertising from gaming website Gamasutra, citing feedback from its consumers on controversial pieces published on that site; some media sites like The Verge and Ars Technica believed this was in direct response to Operation Disrespectful Nod, a movement aimed at advertisers of sites in opposition to GamerGate." Sourcing it with Ars Technica and The Verge (Which explain what ODN is) Loganmac (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Both Re/code and Ars Technica offer a fairly neutral take on this development. We should give them priority over the more obviously partisan pieces.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Verge is more known, not sure if Re/code is RS, and yeah the Ars Technica article is pretty neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

New Adland article re: GamerGate and Intel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

http://adland.tv/adnews/intel-has-gamers-inside-pulls-advertising-gamasutra/251869514#ibSHU4efLPhAbRdT.99

Willhesucceed (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Look up. Bosstopher (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fish's comments

In regards to this change [7] from TDA: There are three major issues here:

1. We really don't need to add more negative opinions about the proGG side from prior events at this point. The article - due to the press angle - already paints those that harassed Quinn etc. as bad people, so more comments of that same are unnecessary. And while Fish is well-established to be combative, I'm not 100% sure we really need his vulgar descriptions of this in an article that is already in a heated state.
2. There is no clear evidence that he was doxxed due to those comments (which would make them appropriate) or simply speaking out in favor of Quinn (making the quotes unnecessary). As without evidence we should simply avoid any significant details here; he was doxxed due to speaking out for Quinn, and then left the industry. End of story.
3. Minor, but this also replaces a very reliable source (Verge) with two weak ones. Understood this is for quoting, but again, not sure the quoting is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Verge source is from 2013 and does not discuss this situation at all. I replaced that with sources that actually discussed the allegations, discussed Fish's situation, and noted his combative style as being part of it. Paste and The Daily Dot are both reputable outlets cited in other parts of this article to make anti-GamerGate arguments such as blaming it all on 4chan, including claiming #NotYouShield was made up on 4chan and perpetuated by sock puppets. Your reasoning for excluding this is essentially that it would "fuel the pro-GamerGate fire" and that is not a valid rationale, but instead one that seems steeped in POV considerations. In fact, it appears to me that your real reason for removing it is because it makes Phil Fish look like a bit of a jerk and makes the alleged hacking seem less like an attempt to silence a valiant male voice defending a horribly-harassed woman, but more like retaliation for some rather vitriolic attacks. Right now this says people defending her were targeted and Fish got hacked and doxxed for supporting her. The fact this person was likening her critics to rapists and calling them "ball-less manboobs" is definitely relevant. By knowingly excluding the full story, despite it being laid out in reliable sources, we are propagating a false image of people viciously attacking anyone who says a kind word in favor of a poor, defenseless madame. This is unethical and a violation of NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Verge 2013 article establishes that Fish is a known controversial figure to begin with (that was the Fez2 mess). The reason to not include the specific quotes from Fish is that they do make him look like a jerk but more importantly make us look more biased against the proGG side because of the bitterness of those statements, if there is no reason to include them. (And yes, I'm well aware that before this, Fish did have a certain reputation in the industry for outbursts, etc. I am no way trying to defend his image here). If we were 100% sure that those that doxxed Fish were doing because of those statements, then yes, including them is almost necessary as to talk about the type of language that led to the doxxing. But that's not an affirmed point: he sided with Quinn and then he lashed out, but which was the true catalyst, we can't tell. As such, we should very much avoid including any statements that are unneeded that will make the claims that this article is more biased (even though I do recognize that having them sourced to Fish should not do so, it will be taken that way, judging from the past of this article). If you can show that the doxx was specifically or mostly influenced by the bitter statements, then we should include them, but otherwise, by identifying Fish as a "controversial" person from prior issues (the 2013 Verge article) the reader can infer that his support of Quinn likely met with problems (And they can read more if they wish to know more). --MASEM (t) 00:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Image captions aren't another front in the battle

If we're going to have images of some of the major players, there's no need to rehash every detail about them. Just a brief who-it-is and what-they-did, e.g. going into all the minutiae of Quinn's ex in her caption is excessive. I'm also unconvinced of the need to include Adam Baldwin; have reliable sources continued to make note of his initial involvement? It seems like it was a one-and-done blip. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Stating Sommers "disagreed" with the criticism is limp-wristed, while refusing to mention why Quinn was subject to any campaign is overly protective. The allegations against Quinn are widely discussed and directly relevant to the whole issue so a brief summation should be included in the caption. Baldwin is totally relevant seeing as he is believed to have started up the hashtag for which this whole frickin' article is named and is certainly the one who got it the most initial exposure.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree the captions should be limited to the name as long as the text of why they are relevant is "next" to the image in the body of the article. One less area for edit conflicts/warring. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Radio Nero

Thoughts on using this as a source: https://soundcloud.com/radio_nero

It's hosted by Milo, a journalist; it's independent of Breitbart; and many of the figures interviewed so far are well-known in the industry or are notable participants in the controversy.

Willhesucceed (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

HOMG!!!!! HOMG!!!!- the journalist conspiracy continues! Milo is obviously in the pocket of the gamergaters as an acquaintance of the founder of gamergate hash tag. Conspiracy1 He must be removed from the article as completely bias source. And HOMG ! More conspiracy and bias! he is also colluding with Sommers. Why werent these connection exposed! HOMG the corruption!!!1!!! Why isnt the media covering this inscestious relationships? HOMG! This obvious collusion and MUST be removed from the article. HOMG! They cannot be reliable!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)