Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

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)

Please, yes. Remove every remotely pro-gamergate word. Seriously. It would be vastly less insulting than pretending this is not an advertisement: "Feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian was already the target of harassment from the gamer community due to her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games project, but her newest video in the series soon got her involved in Gamergate." It's not even cited! It's original research! So if you're dead set on writing a biased article, just do it. But don't be dishonest and act like you're striving for an informational and unbiased view. That's complete nonsense. Lasati (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a caption that accurately summarizes the reliably-sourced text immediately next to it. Woodroar (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You know what. There were a couple of publications already used that linked the Patreon accounts of people involved. So would you have a problem if I cited those articles (hey, reliable sources) and provided a link to Patreon accounts of Zoe, Anita, Jenn, etc? I'm thinking that's the way to go with this article. Lasati (talk) 13:43, 3 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? If that was truly what you wanted AND it was based in policy or previous consensus AND the other editors agreed to make the change, then yes, that would be an acceptable outcome. In this case doing that is not valid because of the amount of reliable sources covering it, though keeping the strongest sources and removing the weakest ones could be a good solution if some editors thought one side was over-represented. When the positions of editors are confronted over subjective shades of grey, meeting half-way is a quite valid option encouraged by policy.

I don't have to work on incorporating information that doesn't merit inclusion just because you want it included anyway. So, it has come to this. If you won't step back an inch in your position and are completely unwilling to seek compromise and address my concerns, which I based in policy, there's no point in continuing this conversation. The only thing to do is moving to the next step in dispute resolution. Diego (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

Would you gaters Opinion discarded. --davidh.oz.au 05:32, 3 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 [3] 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 [4]. 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)

[5] NYTimes is now reporting on this, so I would say a neutral statement that it is believed that the Alexander piece was the trigger would be appropriate. But asking for a quick check from here before doing so. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure Nytimes blogs are RS? I still think we should include a small neutral statement like you suggested before, no opinions needed Loganmac (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral in the sense that "Intel removed its ads from GAmasutra, which the site confirmed was over some recent controversal articles" (this is all fact, that's quotable) "(Sources) claim this was in regards to Alexander's piece." (here to avoid us being presumptious). --MASEM (t) 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

[6] CNN has come out with an article too now. Mentions Pro-GG interpretations of Operation Disrespectful nod. Bosstopher (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

... and claims it all started with Anita Sarkeesian. And people wonder why I'm contemptuous of mainstream coverage of this topic! Willhesucceed (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, corporations are not people; they do not get BLP protection. Seeing how reliable sources are now beginning to describe Intel's actions as "siding with misogyny" as well, your claim of "libel" is a joke. Do not alter my post again. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Intel's statement Willhesucceed (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Both Engadget and The Verge note that it's effectively a non-apology apology, given that there's no indication the ads will be restored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I seriously think the word "apology" is rather wrong (yes, I know, sources say that), but statement is a much neutral description, oh well Loganmac (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight tag

This article continues to be in dispute resolution over the issue of undue weight and NPOV. It needs to be tagged. Given that there are a number of sources which discuss this issue, and given that the Streisand Effect was a big part of why this blew up the way that it did, it is given quite cursory mention. Likewise, there are general issues with presenting Zoe Quinn and her advocates' views excessively. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The participants of that DRN thread then should not be participating in editing this article. And there is not any undue weight or lack of neutral poitn of view. This is the same argument being rehashed by every single person who has been coming to this page again and again because they feel that the pro-GG side of the debate is not being adequately represented, or that the anti-GG side is being given too much coverage. This is how things are represented in reliable sources. And no amount of complaints that these reliable sources are biased against the gamergate crowd is going to change that because we cannot report on what is not already said in the media. It is not the fault of Wikipedia editors that one side of the debate is being written about in detail in the mainstream media while the other side is relegated to fringe media and controversial blog posts that cannot be used one bit on Wikipedia as a source. In fact, several of the sources you have listed above are not reliable and are in fact problematic on BLP grounds to include, which is the whole god damn reason you were originally banned from this article. I don't understand why that ban was lifted one bit. I mean this is already being discussed above under the header #This article is POV, and most of the sources are clearly POV as well where other people have been saying exactly what I have. The article is neutral. No undue weight is given to anything, other than perhaps writing a bit too much on one single person's opinions, rather than the "undue weight" that you are alleging is an issue which is the whole of the "gamergate is full of misogyny and sexist harassment" narrative that is reliably sourced to multiple news sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If "no one involved in the DRN should be editing the article", then why on earth are you, Tarc, and NorthBySouthBaranof doing so? All three of you are involved in that. You continue to remove the tag, despite having been told in the past that it was inappropriate to do so while the dispute resolution was going on. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've clearly stated twice on the DRN page that I'm not participating in it because its just forum shopping.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing at DRN that prevents one from editing the article in question, particular with the underspecifity of the DRN request (which boils down to "None of the sources present the unbiased view, what are we to do!"). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea there was a DRN filing over this. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And at the DRN, you are simply rehashing the same tired, irrelevant conspiracy-theory "biased" nonsense for the fifteenth time. There is no purpose in it, and I decline to relitigate claims that have been repeatedly rejected as lacking any basis in policy or common sense. Sources you disagree with are not biased and even if they were, we're not prohibited from using biased sources. If you want to keep peddling that line, there is no point in "dispute resolution" because you refuse to admit that that has already been resolved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

At the DRN, I'm going through and sorting out the sources by what they talk about. You are upset because it indicates that the sources do not back up your repeated claims that the sources all just talk about harassment, because they do not. Even a selection from your list, which you claimed to be all about harassment, revealed a large number of sources which disagreed with that assessment. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No one is claimed that they only talk about harassment, but it is true most make that the lead-in focus of the story. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

[citation needed] - neither I nor anyone else has ever stated that it is "only" harassment. Rather, what I have repeatedly stated is what is supported and restated by reliable source after reliable source - that if it ever was about "journalism ethics" (a debatable point in itself), the decision to focus the campaign on allegations about the sex life of an obscure indie developer stemming from a "strange, rambling attack" of a blogpost by the developer's "spurned ex-boyfriend" (both quotes from NYT) was impossibly misguided, resulting in a wave of misogynistic harassment and third-grade-level sex jokes which have permanently and irreversibly poisoned the well for any future debates. To quote The New York Times, "Intel’s decision added to a controversy that has focused attention on the treatment of women in the games business and the power of online mobs." That is how the movement is perceived in the mainstream, and there really isn't any neat and easy way of undoing it as you and others would apparently like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's like I'm on Twitter again. For fucks sake, Titanium Dragon, no one is saying that "Gamergate is a harassment campaign and nothing else". All reliable sources and all people discussing things here note that the controversy concerns eliminating conflicts of interest in gaming journalism but it was also conflated with the fact that Zoe Quinn was and is still being harassed because her jilted ex said shit about her that people ready to hate on anyone for getting into their boy's club ate right up.

And also what the hell happened to that Brianna Wu piece I found weeks ago?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: I'm not sure I'm familiar with that article. Who is Brianna Wu, and who did she write for? I mostly remember sources, not journalists. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wu is a podcaster with 5by5 Studios and wrote this for Polygon shortly before the shit hit the fan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Censorship

The question of private censorship of privately owned but publicly available fora seems to be an important and interesting component of this controversy. The Techcrunch story of 25 September covers some of this here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC).

It's briefly covered at Backlash and social media campaign ("On some websites, posts relating to the controversy were blocked or deleted"), and that Techcrunch is used further down to quote the author's opinion. I agree we could expand the concept with more opinions from RSs. Diego (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There's not a lot of opinions on this that can be sourced, since the primary reaction is from gamers posting in on social media or other forums. It's covered as necessary to the point right now that sources go into it (as a minor part of the overall issue). --MASEM (t) 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a large number of sources on this. Forbes, TechCrunch, GamerHeadlines, GamesNosh, Digitimes... Julian Assange commented on it, and we also had the Breitbart thing which would be an opinion on it. Really it is a major part of the story. I'm not sure where you got the idea it was a minor part of the story from; the coverage on it has been fairly extensive. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We've already rejected Assange's comment as completely aside to the matter (as he never stated the words Gamegate). GamerHeadlines and GamesNosh aren't reliable. We have mentioned that the censorship led to the Streisand effect, which is important, but there's little more else that we can go into on it. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That Assange AMA question is constantly being brought up on this site and others as proof of whatever the speaker wants to say about people being banned from all of these websites for bringing up Gamergate, but as Masem points out he did not speak about Gamergate. He may have been asked something that included the word "gamergate" but it's not like what he said applies only to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It is more accurate to say that Assange did comment on GamerGate, but Newsweek only alluded to this without noting that a quote about GamerGate was a quote about GamerGate. We can easily cite Reddit as a primary source to clear up that fact, but then that would require acknowledging a more credible voice of support for GamerGate and, natch, some here will use any excuse in the book to keep as much of that shit out of this article as possible. Fortunately, the New Statesmen has been more honest in its reporting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the AMA at Reddit, and the question was a way to attach GG to a censorship question, something like "What are your feelings when corportions employ censorship, as with Gamergate?". Assange basically had no opinion on GG itself, just (as would be expected for him) the use of censorship. As such, the quote is completely unrelated to any valuable discussion on this article. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The question was "How do you feel about the censorship on Reddit in wake of GamerGate?" and his response started with "It's pathetic" so he was definitely talking about it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Which doesn't give any opinion on gamergate itself, and a question that just knowing Assange, the answer was pretty much a given. It's useless here. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Eg it is like asking Charleton Heston his opinion on gun control in the wake of a school shooting, and using that to justify an opinion about the school shooting. It's a indirect question. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A question about censorship of GamerGate discussions is not related to GamerGate? Masem, you have very weird standards. For the record, we also have the News Statesman piece talking about it as well. The WikiLeaks tweet cannot really be interpreted as anything other than a show of support for GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A man who is extremely anti-censorship was asked what he thinks about censorship and the person asking the question tacked on something about Gamergate to the end so they feel like they have someone huge backing them regardless of the answer's content. Assange said nothing about Gamergate itself. Just a reiteration of his stance on censorship.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's cute, but you are operating in WP:JDL territory now. The question was about GamerGate and the response was about GamerGate. Newsweek takes note of the comment and that GamerGate came up (the Reddit thread allowing us to connect the two seemingly unrelated statements in the article), while the New Statesman explicitly notes support from Assange and Wikileaks. We would be quite able to make further note of censorship concerns in relation to all that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Assange replied to it and less than 30 minutes the official Wikileaks published two tweets asking #GamerGate (using the hashtag) to aim higher, who are we kidding here that he wasn't talking about? Loganmac (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can either of you point out one thing in his response that speicifically discusses Gamergate? Or is it just "censorship is bad"? And no citable source we have mentions Gamergate in relation to the actual quote you want to have in this article, as far as I am aware.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We can cite primary sources when we're dealing with opinions expressed by people, Ryulong, and the fact that he was responding to the question about GamerGate - and the fact that Wikikleaks Tweeted about it reinforces the idea that they are aware. That's one of the things that primary sources are actually useful for. Incidentally, your complaint about a man not liking censorship not being quotable would mean that we would have to eliminate all of the feminist sources from this article. According to your logic, we should do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the forbes source a real article or a contributor post? Protonk (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's likely a Kain piece, which while a contributor, has an established past with being reliable from the standpoint of the VG project. We're fine with that as a source here. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

More structure

I've added some sub-headings to two sections, to make it easier to find content in them and separate different subjects. The "Allegations" and "Legitimacy" could also use one heading or two, but I couldn't find a good arrangement.

I've bitten the bullet with the term "Social Justice Warrior". By using it as a section title we don't need to define it, and it's clear that it refers to the "backlash against social criticism of video games because many readers don’t want to be told what’s good or bad about a game’s social politics" described in that section. Diego (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to use a term of abuse (and that's how it's intended, however absurd that may seem) as a section heading? --TS 11:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

agree I would not use it as a section heading. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Google News

For the first time in my experience, today this article appeared as the top hit in a Google News search on the word Gamergate. Perhaps a slight uptick in page accesses and talk page discussion might be expected as a result if this increased exposure. Perhaps not. Google's algorithms produce different results for different locations and different users, so it's difficult to quantify the actual exposure resulting. --TS 11:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It probably has to do with the Intel thing, GamerGate has been the most popular on twitter/reddit the day that happened Loganmac (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible background source

Sometime in the last couple of weeks, I had included this Polygon opinion piece by Brianna Wu concerning her experiences with sexist and misogynist harassment. But now everything from this piece is gone entirely. What's up with that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus and debate my friend. --Torga (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you point out the debate and consensus that led to the removal of this as a source? Cause I don't think I ever saw it happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When this article was massively restructured (I think by RPoD), some of the pre-event stuff was taken out; that including Wu's piece as well as other examples of pre-GG harassment (eg the COD dev) --MASEM (t) 14:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't give the Doomed Red Pen credit for my accomplishments. That was my epic Leeroy Jenkins edit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That article is earlier than the GamerGate, being dated at Jul 22. It would better used at Sexual harassment in video gaming and Women and video games; if no RS has made the link between that opinion to the GamerGate, including it here would be WP:SYNTH. Diego (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I found it in a post-GG article, but it was on Cracked. To be honest, a lot of their writing on GG has not been satirical.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Asian sources / Patreon / Quinn

http://www.huxiu.com/article/43065.html

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/10/01/patreon-pressured-pull-sarkeesian-effect-documentary/

Running the first article through Google's translation service shows that it's reliable and detailed. Everything matches up with the record elsewhere. I link it because I'd like to use it, or Bright Side of News, as a source for gamers' earlier concerns about Quinn's Patreon patrons (beyond just Jenn Frank), many of them video games journalists and game developers.

It's also covered implicitly in http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats and http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/07/the-gamergate-question/

Willhesucceed (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What information does the article include that isn't covered in Enlglish language ones? Machine translations lose a lot of nuance. English-language sources are generally preferred, all other things being equal. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That it's more than just Jenn Frank who's funding her, i.e. other members of the gaming press and developers are doing so, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Google Translation of the article is a muddled, unreadable mess, featuring phrases such as "Another game circle feminist warrior, female game commentator Anita Sarkeesian also unfortunate gun." I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of it, but it doesn't seem useful to support anything meaningful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"The Google Translation of the article is a muddled, unreadable mess" - Good thing the English Wikipedia is home to 1,544 different native speakers of Chinese, right? Why not ask for help? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one proposing to use the source, so maybe you should ask someone else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

But you were judging the desirability of a source based on a poor machine translation that did not accuratey reflect the contents of the piece. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the previous posts in a thread before commenting in that thread. I did exactly what the person who proposed the article said they did — ran the article through Google's translation service, which according to them, "shows that it's reliable and detailed." On the contrary, I got a garbled mess that can be said to be neither reliable nor detailed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm well capable and willing to accurately translate the piece to English, provided that I can have reassurance that I won't be accused of BLP policy violation simply for being the messenger once I post the translation on the talk page. The piece is quite detailed in how it covers the entire history of the debacle, which can help with the verifiability of this article and fill in any missing gaps.

Having a quick Baidu search, the entire incident is well covered on Chinese websites, with articles from the IT specialist section of this news website, and this mainstream news website (in fact, QQ.com is one of the biggest mainstream news portals in mainland China in terms of readership). These are all websites that the general population takes very seriously, both sites being government registered news outlets per the information laws of the People's Republic of China (it is illegal to market yourself as a "news outlet" without government permission).

Finally, may I remind you that while machine translations work decently between Germanic languages such as English and Dutch, Chinese is a Sinic language, and that the technology for machine translation to Chinese is hardly there yet, of course you're going to get gibberish. Regardless of how much money Google attempts to pump into developing machine translations, many scientific journals guesstimate that it will be at least 25 years until we can get reliable machine translation between Germanic and Sinic languages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're concerned that you might be accused of violating BLP by posting a translation of this article I would suggest that you not do so. We are not likely to be using any extraordinary new claims that are only sourced ot this article and have somehow been overlooked by the many, many sources that we already have. This is primarily an English-language movement, so unless the article has some insight into the effects the movement is having in Chinese-language communities or how the Chinese speaking world is participating I don't think it's likely to be any more useful than the many high quality sources we already have.

I think we're all well aware of the limitations of machine translations, but when a machine translation is the point of reference for the person initiating the discussion it's entirely fair for other participants to use and comment on it as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just been seeing overzealous accusations of BLP vios being thrown around all too much lately, not specifically on here, but all over the Wikipedia project. It's precisely the reason why I find BLP topics tedious and bothersome. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that brings up the question of whether or not this is a reliable source to begin with. The translation says it's a "submission," the only byline is "game grapes" and it comes with the disclaimer that "Articles for authors independently views do not represent the position of the tiger sniffing network." (Oh, machine translation...) This would suggest that it's not a staff-written, edited/fact-checked article, but more akin to a self-published user blog. A machine translation of the Frequently Asked Questions page seems to support the proposition that articles on the site are basically self-published. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the author's own editorial, he doesn't write on behalf of the website. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there an identifiable byline, or is it an anonymous username? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is written by 游戏葡萄 (pinyin: Yóuxì pútáo; lit. 'Game Grapes'), which is described as "A games industry media business with discerning integrity and foresight", that can be contacted with the email hi@youxiputao.com. Their writer's page refers to themselves in the first-person collective pronoun (我们), which suggests that this is a company hired to write articles on the behalf of websites, and not an individual. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

After a bit more digging, I've discovered that "Game Grapes" is officially registered as, and is operating as, "Beijing Coolgame Technology Co., Ltd.", with the ICP registration number 13050684. The company address is located at "中国 北京 朝阳区景华南街1号 旺座中心公寓西塔1208室，100022" (Unit 1208, Wangzuo Central Apartment Blocks Eastern Tower, 1 Jinghuanan Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. Postcode 100022) and their telephone number is 010-53370644. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists

aren't mentioned at all. I understand why the section was removed, but it's odd to remove them entirely. They should be noted and briefly discussed somewhere in the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a H3 section for them...--MASEM (t) 14:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I swear I Ctrl+Fd the page before coming here! Willhesucceed (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Social Justice Warrior"

Why is it 'best' to leave this term unqualified? Just saying it's 'best' isn't a justification - explain why, please, if you're going to revert every attempt to include any context for the term It's not unique to GamerGate, and it's not so important to the movement that it needs to be included at all, but if it must, I see no reason not to include some information about what people are saying about the use of the term or what it implies. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's important to include somewhere here because the term is used frequently in the sourcing we are providing, so anyone reading further will know where the term applies; that makes it necessary to at least mention. But because the definition will actually vary strongly depending on which side you want to take, it's best left for the term to speak on it's own and/or left to the reader to infer from the sources, because we cannot certainly come up with an consistent objective definition from the sourcing. (It also does sorta speak for itself, knowing that "social justice" is a thing). --MASEM (t) 15:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

With no explanation for the term or its implications, including it doesn't add anything. As with GamerGate itself, we let the reliable sources define it for us, so it doesn't matter that the definition 'will actually vary strongly depending on which side you want to take.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does add something; it provides a text in enough context (to know that those supporting Quinn et al were called that by the proGG side) to let the reader know what is implied by this term. We have zero need to define it because it is simple enough to gleen from the words, and there is no definition out there that is not biased any way or another. While I am fully on the lines that we do go by what the sources say, this is yet another point that we have to be awre the bulk of the sources are decidedly anti-GG and is going to us language that is not appropriate for what our neutral stance needs to be. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Perceived bias isn't a fatal flaw in a source, as I would think you would know by now. GamerGaters would say that this article is 'biased' because it describes their movement in terms the movement doesn't use itself, but since we're only saying what the sources do that's not a problem. It's a pejorative. That's simple fact. It's generally anti-progressive. that's easily citeable. What reliably sourced information on the term would you like to include that might 'balance' that in favor of the Gaters' position? Saying that we must include this term but we must not explain its meaning is a bizarre position to me. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing we can add to balance the proGG because that's sourced, so to maintain the balance we subtract from the other - or at least prevent that position from being so pervasive throughout the article as to create the bias. When reliable sources do define the term, it's more anti-proGG fuel, adding to the calls of sexism and misogyny that are already clear in this article, we don't need to pile on more. That's been the issue with a lot of the recent editors and the overquoting. Yes we are using the sources, but to me it feels like some are using that to push the anti-proGG side as much as it can be since there's going to be nothing from the proGG to counter, which means that NPOV doesn't have to be followed. While technicially correct, we can be better, and find something that is a fair balance of points and does not at all attempt to villify the proGG side as much as the article does now while still making sure that the actions of harassment and doxxing are noted as extremely bad things as seen by the press and in no way justifying these tactics. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We need to present this information the way the sources do, good or bad. We can't restrict information simply because it paints GamerGate in a bad light. If there is 'nothing we can add to balance the proGG' then there's no bias problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not accurate. We do have to summarize and mirror sources, but per NPOV and WP:BIAS, we also have to be aware when sources will spin the story in a direction that's not appropriate. This in no way means we should alter how we approach the facts here (eg burying the mysogyny aspects) but when these sources are speaking their opinions, and particularly personal opinions, we can be a lot more selective about what to include to avoid being too much a mouthpiece for these. And in the case of SJW definitions, none of them that I've seen even attempt to state the term in unbiased language. Since it stands on its own in context (eg who called who, and after establishing that Quinn's game was around focus of a social issue) it is better for us not to enter into that debate and only acknowledge its existence. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because the phrase itself is inherently biased. It is only ever used by people in or out of the Gamergate controversy to pejoratively refer to people. It's used on Tumblr to refer to the overly politically correct people who talk over other people or champion for things that don't need to be championed for. Gamergate just uses it to call out their opposition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because the phrase itself is inherently biased. This is exactly it. It's a decidedly loaded term. Using it with no context about how it's used within the gater movement is inappropriate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We give it context: it is what the proGG side has called Quinn et al. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm talkinga bout context for what the term means. Yes, they called Quinn and her supporters "social justice warriors,' but why? What does the term mean? By including it, we're suggesting that their use of the term is important, so why don't we bother telling the reader what it means? There is commentary about gaters' use of the term, and what it implies which is at least as important to this article as their use of the term itself; excluding it because it 'creates too much bias' is an NPOV issue. We can't exclude relevant information that clarifies what this term means as it's used by gaters because it makes the gaters look bad. If you don't want to include it, we can remove the term altogetehr, but we can't introduce it without explaining why it's being used as it is. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Either we give the definition or criticism of the term or we don't include it in our summarization of the events.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it works fine without definition as it is clear to its meaning in context. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it important to include if we don't define it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Because some of the articles in our sources using "SJW" (the term or even some cases, just the abbreviation) without context; as such for a reader that is looking to research this topic, we provide a necessary "term of art" that applies so they know what it is when they encounter it. This is standard good practice for any encyclopedic article. Again, it's perceived meaning is apparent in context. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not our place to explain that to people if we don't mention it but other publications do and don't bother to inform their readers what it means.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. And it's not that none of them that use the term/abbrev SJW don't define it, some definitely do. If it the term was used and never defined or put in context, I might agree, but it's definitely understood what it means in context, but putting that to words will be a biased statement from any source. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the definitions provided by publications differ so much that picking a definition would ultimately be an arbitrary decision. Besides, none of them really get it right. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree: the sourced definitions are perfectly apt. A linguist defining a term would look at how it is used to determine what it means, rather than accepting what the people using it say that it means. The sources do get it right: it's a pejorative term for people who speak up against bigotry, especially online. The people who use it frequently say that it really means someone who makes 'shallow' comments about social justice, or that it refers to people who are insencere and only use social justice to 'make themselves look better.' But the term is actually best defined by examining who and what it's used to describe, not what the users say it says about the people they level it against.

Again, we can not restrict sourced information just because it makes gaters look bad. If you don't want to go into what the reliable sources are saying about GamerGate's use of this term and what it says about the movement, we can leave it out. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There are also more neutral definitions in some of the sources, and many of the sources vary as to the exact definition, so we can't arbitrarily pick which one to use. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like the content I added, let's see the sources you'd rather use instead. All you're doing is asserting that conflicting sources exist and using it to argue against using any of them. Let's see the ones that conflict? -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

NPR calls it "an insulting term." [7] I again agree that it is entirely inappropriate for us to mention the phrase without mentioning the fact that it is a non-self-applied pejorative label created and singularly pushed by their ideological opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fair, but when we start to broaden the ambit beyond that to explain what exactly it's meant to insult, we run into the problem that different sites say different things. For lack of a reliable dictionary definition, there's little else we can describe about it. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're including the term to arm readers who want to look through the sources on the page we should at least do them the courtesy of noting its valence and various uses. We don't have to settle on a single definition just yet, but it's not the kind of term which can be on the page without elaboration as it is not commonly known and has specific meaning to this issue. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about the controversy, the term "Social Justice Warrior" already carries an implicit meaning - one that fights for social justice. Yes, when used in GG, it takes on also a more demeaning nature, however, you have sources reporting on what the term means that already don't like that term being used, and as such, is nearly always going to be defined by them more harshly than it really should be taken. As such, we can leave it at the implicit meaning particularly when enough context is established: it is what some proGG call Quinn and her supporters. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The term is demeaning, insulting and pejorative, and is singularly used and applied by their opponents in an attempt to belittle their actions and motivations. We cannot use demeaning, insulting and pejorative labels without specifically citing its use and explaining the term as discussed in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As NBSB said, it's a pejorative, and we need to make that clear. If the only argument against including it is that it makes Gamergate look bad, I invite you to balance the information we've introduced on the term with well sourced pro-Gamergate information about its use (whatever that might be.) Fighting to exclude extremely well-sourced information that makes the movement look bad in the name of 'neutrality' is simple hypocrisy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you 100% sure that every proGG person is using the term in a derogatory manner? I'm not proGG but I would disagree with that statement. There are definitely a handful of cases that "SJW" is tossed around insultingly at people, but at the same time, the term by itself is like "911 truther"; there's a negative connotation but that ranges from "they disagree with my opinion" (very slight, and hence not a bad thing) to something equivalent to like the n-word (grossly insulting). That said, I wouldn't have a problem saying that the term is sometimes used derogatorily towards the Quinn supporters, which can be sourced in a neutral manner. But we don't need further comment on why that term being used derogatorily is a bad thing - it's patently obvious already that that side is not seen in a positive light. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, no and no. We have posted a number of sources describing the term as patently pejorative, insulting and demeaning. Do you have even a single source that describes the term as anything else? Yes, it's funny that it's supposed to be a bad thing that someone fights for social justice, but that's the intent of the term as applied against those who oppose harassment of women in gaming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you 100% sure that every proGG person is using the term in a derogatory manner? That is so not how WP:RS works and you know it. We don't need to personally verify that it's being used this way all the time: that would be OR. We say what the sources say. If you have sourced information that shows that SJW is something other than a pejorative, please feel free to provide it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, the sources say it pejorative, and we can include that, but at the same time that also eliminates the need to go into the term more and provide a definition, though if we have to include a definition, the WA post's version "a derogatory term for people in the video-game industry who use the medium to talk about political issues" is about as neutral as appropriately needed here. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"creating a divide between consumers and game industry professionals including developers and journalists."

I'm aware that you don't necessarily need to include sources in the lede, but I don't agree that this is a good assessment of the issue. I added a citation needed tag, rather than simply removing it, to see if anyone could find reliable sources describing this as simply a 'consumers vs. industry' issue: I would contend that GamerGate is a subset of consumers all its own and doesn't represent the general gaming population. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re this: what I actually said was that I refrained from removing it out of an overabundance of caution against 'revert warring,' to see if it could be supported by whoever added it. I didn't say anything about 'clarifying.' If it can't be sourced, it should go. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very obvious from the entire body that this exists (though being clear that it is not all gamers at play helps). The essence of GG is gamers vs dev/media from numerous sources. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not obvious at all. It's clear there's a 'divide' between Gaters and the industry. Not all 'consumers' are gaters. Your phrasing also implies that it's only the industry on the other side of the 'divide,' when in fact there are plenty of 'consumers' over there as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you look into it yourself, Tara, and then you wouldn't be wasting the rest of the contributors' time? It's pretty easy to verify. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who starts a new talkpage section every time he finds a source he thinks 'someone' should use in the article. I tagged the statement and started a talkpage section here rather than removing it to give whoever added it an opportunity to source or improve the statement. It's not my job to source something I don't think should be in the article to begin with. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's so terrible that I bring articles to the contributors' attention. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And absolutely dreadful that I started a discussion about a change to the article I had concerns about instead of immediately reverting it. Everyone has access to Google news, so dumping sources onto the talk page and expecting other editors to evaluate and use them for you isn't exactly productive: if this discussion is a waste of time, those certainly are. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

While you and I know that there gamers that support the journos and devs here, we don't have sources that say this. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Do we have sources that say otherwise, though? I'm not advocating saying 'between some consumers and the industry and some other consumers,' I'm advocating removing information that gives a skewed perception of the issue. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Tara. It's not obvious (at all) that GG is "gamers/pros versus devs and journalists". That's certainly a narrative that the GG side would like to adopt, but we could just as easily classify the issue as a flare up of resentment and tribalism from a narrow and dedicated group of individuals manifesting itself through sexism and threats against outsiders. Obviously that's the anti-GG side, but I think the bloodless wording belies a slant to the characterization which we need to address. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The point of the statement is to identify who the participants in the controversy are, because it is not clear without it. Once you read the article, it is glaringly clear that it is a subset of the gamer community on one side, and devs/journalists on the other; these are not bright lines, there's likely some of each on the other side, but for the most part that is the classification. The article does not make that clear at any point, even though the sum of the parts says this. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from the whole article. Not sure about the devs part but seriously just google games journalism, and the "divide" has been growing since other incidents, like DoritoGate, mentioned at Keighley's article, the Kane & Lynch controversy, also mentioned, the Mass Effect 3 debacle, etc Loganmac (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing, though: it's a 'divide' between gaters on the one side, and games journalists and the marganalized audiences that gaters are railing against on the other. Gaters have been painting this as an 'industry vs the consumer' issue, but outside observers looking at the movements targets and tactics say otherwise. This looks like an attempt to give preference to the gaters' preferred narrative in defiance of the relaible sources on the matter. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, where are there sources that marganalized gamers are on the opposite side of the proGG side? There is a lot of fallout from certain actions that those that could care less about the matter will be affected by, but there are no sources that claim that there is a large contingient of gamers on the opposite side of the table from the proGG side. I mean, I don't deny they exist, I know a few, but I also know no sourcing is available to establish that. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, where's the source that they aren't? You're essentially trying to open the article by introducing Gamergate's 'David vs Goliath' narrative, without providing any support other than saying that it's 'glaringly obvious' that it's true - even though you yourself acknowledge that there are gamers on both sides of the issue. As I haven't advocated changing it to 'Some Davids vs Goliath and some more Davids,' it's still you who needs to provide sources, not me. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

you shouldnt have to "read the article" to find out that it is a vanishingly small portion of gamers that hold the views/ participated in the assaults, that should be clear in the lead per WP:LEAD / WP:NPOV etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I found the Guardian's article spells out the sides explicitly, so readded with the source. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You're basing that on the summary under the headline from one article? That's a pretty poor justification for painting this entire issue, in the lede, as being a conflict between gamers and journalists. Look at the amount of sourcing that was necessary to retain the word 'misogyny' in the lede of the article. It's also worth noting that while Gamergate claims to be focusing on journalism and the industry, their real targets are somewhat more specific and we shouldn't suggest otherwise. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is patently obvious it is primarily between gamers and journalists/devs. That's " It is a war between self-identifying “gamers” and video game critics." gives. Yes there are exceptions, but every major mainstream articles clearly paints it this way. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not and no, they don't.

• The New York Times — "For a little more than a month, a firestorm over sexism and journalistic ethics has roiled the video game community..." [8]
• National Public Radio: "For the past several weeks, the video game industry has been embroiled in a heated, sometimes ugly, debate..." [9]
• Marketplace: "There's a fight underway that's tearing apart the community of people who play, write about, enthuse and obsess over video games." [10]
• Vox: "Over the past several weeks, the online video game community has become ground zero for a series of heated discussions and arguments..." [11]

I can go on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that phrasing doesn't fully identify which side is which, but when you gather all the sources, the split is patently obvious. And this should be clear who the "players" are in the lead (which should state the who, what, when, with the body doing the how and why of the matter), but it presently doesn't. Considering it is a broad stroke that doesn't dig into the details of the exceptional cases, what is exactly wrong with "a portion of the gamers vs game journo/devs"? What is factually wrong about that the sources in the article counter? --MASEM (t) 23:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is false and misleading to state, in the lede and in Wikipedia's voice, that the only people on one side of the argument are "gamers" and the only people on the other side of the argument are "journalists and developers." That is a vast, yawning and unacceptable oversimplification of a complex issue. There are journalists on one side (Milo Yiannopoulos and Erik Kain among them) and gamers on the other, as can be easily demonstrated.

It is not possible to identify who the "players" are in the lede in the simple and neat way you would like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can as a broad statement is 100% appropriate for the lead. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A broad and accurate statement would be appropriate for the lede, but we have is a broad statement that is backed up by a lone source when there are many others that disagree. The 'split' is not "patently obvious. If it were patently obvious, we would not be here. It only 'obviosu' that is a conflict within the gaming community. It is obvious that the gaters would like to present it as a 'consumer revolt' and a 'battle' between the little guy gamers and the big bad media, but that's not what our sources are saying. A majority of our sources, as evidenced by those that NBSB provided, are not treating this as a conflict between gamers and journalists, but one within the gaming community, so that's what the article needs to say. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To consider: is GG part of a larger social trend (beyond video games)

First, this is inspired by this article [12] but I would not use this article to support this. But it's implying (and I've seen other elements of this) that what's happening in GG is one facet of what is happening in other media areas as well. It would be interesting to see if there are sources that point this out, but at the moment I'm not aware of any and I would not add this until this point is clear. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source saying that, other than Milo comparing it to the JournoList Loganmac (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, hence why I'm not going to add anything until we can a few more better non-SPS sources on this concept, should it exist. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes again on Alexander, Intel, etc.

Link Willhesucceed (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, look and he references his Radio Nero talk at the end. Does this mean Radio Nero is to be considered reliable for interviewees' opinions? Willhesucceed (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• That narrative of gamergate should be slotted under 'fiction', not referenced in the article, but oh well. Protonk (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• The more I see of Kain's work the more concerned I am about using him in this article. We have a plethora of much more reliable sources. Not that I think Wikiproject Video Games is the sole arbiter of what sources can be considered reliable in this article ,I note that on their list of 'situational' sources they say: "Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable. Editors are encouraged to find alternatives to contributor pieces." I don't think we should be including any information in this article at this point that can only be sourced to Kain, and I don't think we should be quoting him directly alongside more reliable industry voices. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Kain too problematic for you huh? Loganmac (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How observant of you. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

While Leigh Alexander's Time article is still up? Ya, that's not happening. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a false equivalency. Does Leigh Alexander's Time article has a similar editorial status to Kain's contributor pieces on Forbes? Or do you just think she should be excluded because she's 'biased' because gaters don't like her opinions? -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of egregiousness. If Leigh, with her abundant COI, which is easily discernible from her opinion pieces, her jobs, her Twitter account, etc., is allowed to contribute to this article, someone who's not toeing the line 100% but who's very well-respected in the industry is certainly allowed a place. None of what Erik writes in any of his articles is Crazy Land. Everything has been acknowledged in other sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's still a false equivalency. I get that you dohn't like Alexander, but her use in this article is irrellevant here. This is not about how many pro- or anti- gamergate sources are used in this article. This is about our policies as they relate to this specific source. Forbes contributor pieces simply do not have the same weight as other Forbes articles, because of the nature of their contributor program. In addition to the Wikiproject Video Games list I referenced earlier, there are many discussions in the archives of WP:RSN that discuss contributor blogs' reliablity (or lack thereof). They are not vetted or fact checked in the way that regular Forbes articles (and the articles of most reliable publications) are; they only represent the author's own work, with very little or no editorial oversight. It is very plain that at the best this should be treated as an opinion piece, not a news source. It's at least above a self-published source, but that still isn't saying all that much. He may be considered reliable for video game coverage (I haven't seen a discussion on that pointed out) but we're not just talking about video games here. We're not using him as a source for when the next big AAA game is coming out. He's not automatically reliable as a news source just because he's been used for gaming-specific news in the past. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The guy has written for Forbes, Slate, The Atlantic, Business Insider, The Week, Techonomy, and Mediaite. I'm pretty sure he knows how to write an article. It's also not like Forbes lets their contributors throw whatever they want onto the website. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's all great, but what he's writing here is an opinion blog that is not under any sort of editorial control. I'm not saying he 'doesn't know how to write an article,' I'm saying that this is not a news article with Forbes's editorial stamp on it. That's why contributor blogs are not universally regarded as reliable sources and have to be evaluated individually when they're used. The problem isn't the quality of his writing, it's that this is a distinctly low-tier source because of the nature of Forbes's contributors program. We shouldn't be making making such heavy use of one journalist's opinion and we certainly can't use it to source anything but his opinion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's a bit preposterous to claim that there's no editorial control. Forbes has a reputation to protect, unlike, say, The Huffington Post. If Erik Kain has been writing for them for this long, it's because he's been doing a good job. They also have "producers" which deal with the contributors' pages. I don't know what that entails, but it is input from at least one other person on the articles. Finally, if hexun.com thinks he's good enough to use as a source, he's good enough; they're the largest financial website in China. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the consensus we have on this source. Here's an article that describes how the contributor model works that might shed some light. And even if we didn't have any standing consensus on Forbes contributors, a good general rule of thumb is that any source that has a 'does not represent the opinions of' disclaimer is an opinion source, not a news source. Currently he's already getting too much weight in this article, especially given that he's not particularly notable for his commentary on gamergate. We should seek to diversify the opinions we're using, rather than piling in ever more citations to Erik Kain. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that, but just a quick note: if there's anyone that's considered reliable at Forbes re: the video gaming industry, it's Kain. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If that were true I'd expect there to be a note to that effect in that source list indicating he's an exception to the projects advice for editors to 'find alternatives to contributor pieces,' but that's beside the point: he's not just reporting on video games here, he's reporting on a social phenomenon. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The ultimate question is whether or not he is a reliable source. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, but he frequently cites secondary sources and makes note of what he is discussing and where he is pulling information from. Frankly, he does more fact-checking than a lot of the supposedly professional journalists, many of whom make factual errors. The New Yorker in their coverage, for instance, appeared to rely almost exclusively on Zoe Quinn as a source and as a result made at least two factual errors, one of them hopeful, the other one pretty major (they claimed that Grayson had not had his professional ethics attacked, something which innumerable sources contradict directly, including Kotaku itself) and that's being generous to them. Is Kain making lots of mistakes? Is Kain referenced by other people as someone who matters/knows what he is talking about? The answer to the first appears to be no, and the answer to the second, doing some Googling, appears to be yes. He seems legitimate enough. I dunno. Our ultimate goal with reliable sources is to make sure that the information they are giving us is, well, reliable. Do we have any really good reason to doubt his reliability on this matter? Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@TaraInDC: Incidentally, where are you seeing the 'does not represent the opinions of'? I don't see anything like that I go to his articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The New Yorker in their coverage, for instance, appeared to rely almost exclusively on Zoe Quinn as a source Oh, good lord, this again. "They just took her word for it all and didn't fact check!!!!!" Gters all think they're authorities on journalism, don't they? It's a profile of her. That doesn't mean that they didn't fact check. I can tell you with confidence that information that is sourced only to Quinn and not independently verified will be phrased in a way that makes the fact clear, and that anything that isn't is a statement that The New Yorker has verified to the point where they feel comfortable making it uncritically. Your claims of 'factual errors' are spurious. We don't pick apart sources, find wording we disagree with, and use that wording to discredit the entire source, and we especially don't do it in an effort to frame an opinion columnist as The Only Neutral Journalist. Kain's pieces are clearly labeled as opinion (The exact quote is "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.") I do not have to prove that Kain is making factual errors here: my argument is quite simply that he is an opinion columnist and must be treated as such, and that his opinions must not be given any special weight in comparison with others just because he's one of the few sources available that the gaters like. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting quotes here

• "people say conservative actor Adam Baldwin started #GamerGate, and he certainly was the one who came up with the hashtag, but it was Leigh Alexander and the flood of similar articles following hers that truly sparked this backlash against the games media"
• "Now we have writers at video game publications perpetuating this stereotype for absolutely no good reason other than to keep a flame-war burning"

It should be added if weight is needed sometime Loganmac (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you being so confrontational?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We already give Kain more space and quote him more often than any other single writer in this article. I realize that he's basically the only reliable source you want to quote because he's the only one that consistently agrees with your position, but this is getting kind of silly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Chill out, it's OK, just leave that quote out. Wouldn't you say it was problem that all reactions to Intel were negative in that paragraph? I tried adding some neutrality. And no, I disagree with him in a lot of things, like where he says boycotts are bad. And no he's not the only reliable source I want to quote. Loganmac (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And here's another Forbes writer: link. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think only Erik Kain was found to be RS at Forbes blogs Loganmac (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Each contributor is given individual weight. Erik Kain has a long standing of knowing his stuff (see the Mass Effect 3 fiasco, for example), but I don't see a reason to exclude this opinion, if it's needed. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Paul Tassi also wrote an article about the same subject matter on Forbes today. Seriously, Leigh Alexander should not be being used as a source for factual information here. As far as Kain goes, given that he has continually cited other sources and demonstrated that his material is well-researched, I don't see any reason to not use him as a source. He has done a better job of fact-checking than a lot of other sources have. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you shut up about your and the movement's perception that anything Leigh Alexander writes is biased and unusable on this page? It's just the same shit repeated every other day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander is usually cited in concert with other sources and at least once in concert with Kain. Aside from the note about the allegations against Quinn in the lede where Kain is also cited, she is only ever cited for general background information or her own opinion. It is possible that certain details could be supported by other sources, but I see no real reason to reduce our current use of Kain or Alexander. We should keep in mind that Alexander is personally very close to this controversy and thus is not sufficiently independent to be considered a reliable source for much outside her opinion. She should not be cited on her own for any claims about GamerGate itself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how people keep saying she's close to the controversy. Is it just her "gamers are dead" piece or was it something else?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate has a habit of rendering women who comment on its ongoing harassment campaigns 'involved' in said campaigns. Alexander is considered by some to have a "COI" because she was harassed and obsessed over by gaters because of her articles on the movement. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is shaped more by the fact that she was an editor at Kotaku and still writes for them in an official capacity. We can argue about the other gaming outlets, but I would like to think we all agree that Kotaku's reporting on the controversy should not be taken as independent coverage given that their reporter's involvement with a game developer was the catalyst for this whole thing. Alexander not writing the pieces for Kotaku does not change that she has deep ties to the outlet and remains tied to them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's even lamer. I don't agree that Kotaku is an automatically unreliable source just because the Gaters have leveled provably false accusations of malfeasance at it, actually, but that's neither here nor there, because it's completely unreasonable to expect Kotaku's supposed conflict of interest to 'taint' every author who writes for the site and follow them when they're writing in other reliable publications with their own editorial staff and their own reputations to maintain. You do realize you're essentially claiming that you know more about journalistic integrity than Time Magazine, don't you? If she's good enough for Time, she's good enough for Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an unactionable request. There are four Kotaku sources. One is the key article that states there was nothing between Quinn and Grayson that influenced a review, refuting the accusation- there should be zero question about the inclusion of this. Two are pre-events, pointing out the only other two times that Quinn was discussed. Neither are a problem here. The fourth is an opinion piece of the "death of gamer" and is just as "biased" as all other "death of gamer" pieces - that is, they are opinion pieces - and thus used only as such. Kotaku is otherwise not used to present any other factual information, so there's no issue with that; we have no Kotaku "reporting of the controversy" in the article period. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed no real use of Kotaku as an independent source, only as a primary source for its own reports. Alexander is also not really being used on her own for anything contentious. I am just saying that any attempt to treat her as an independent source on GamerGate would be mistaken. Our use of her writing right now is pretty much in line with what I think is acceptable. Anything more would be inappropriate. Just because she is writing for other outlets does not take away from her own connection to the controversy. Would we consider Fox News reporters independent in a controversy over Fox News coverage just because said reporter wrote a piece on the controversy for another outlet? People who work for the group or individuals embroiled in a controversy should not be considered independent of the controversy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexander's piece in Gamasutra (a site devoted to video game journal) would certainly not be an independent source, now that it's also targetted as the cause of Intel's ad-pull. But her piece in Time magazine - which we should be assuming has had editorial controls and others making sure that what she wrote in that represented the tone the magazine wanted to give - should be considered sufficiently independent. Yes, if we can replace something she said with something like the WA Post or the like, yeah, I'm all for that, but that specific article is fine to use. The argument "People who work for the group or individuals embroiled in a controversy should not be considered independent of the controversy." would mean nearly every single source would to be eliminated since even the more neutral sources like WA Post and the like are written by people that are video game journalists, just not for video-game only sites. That's not going to happen obviously. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To add one thing - Alexander's Time piece was written before the Gamasutra piece and before she was embroiled in this. That, importantly, identifies the Time piece as acceptable, but should she come out with another piece in Time, we should be careful with that. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To add one thing - Alexander's Time piece was written before the Gamasutra piece and before she was embroiled in this. That, importantly, identifies the Time piece as acceptable, but should she come out with another piece in Time, we should be careful with that. Ah, another one who thinks they know journalistic ethics better than Time Magazine. A reliable source is a reliable source, and Gamergate's decision to harrass Alexander and campaign against Gamasutra does not change that Time Magazine is a reliable source. But more broadly, we can not allow gamergate to control who is and is not considered a reliable source by recusing any source the gaters targets for publishing unfavorable opinions about it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that a second Time piece by Alexander would be unusable, I said we'd have to be careful with it. It would depend on the content; knowing Time, it likely would not be an opinion piece but a restatement of events to date and as long as it was repeated was we know was patently true, would be fine to use. But she is no longer independent as a key actor in the whole mess, so we would prefer those that are more independent than she presently is if we have a choice of sourcing to use. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem there is that the way things are going we're eventually just going to run out of independent sources other than the few who don't get targeted because pander to the gaters. That list of sites to email advertisers about keeps growing. If we're going to consider Alexander an 'involved party,' thought, then Kain certainly is as well: he's actively engaging with the gaters online, guesting on streams and so forth. Or is it only negative or involuntary 'involvement' that causes a COI? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm considering her involved as that her specific gamasutra piece is the center of attention of other sources. Kain's pieces for Fobres - while well read, are not targets for anything, so he remains independent, as well as the bulk of other sources. (I'm aware that there's lists on the GG side of journalists and others they don't consider fair, but we are free to ignore that for purposes of WP's independance) Arguably, the only people right now that are not independent are Quinn, her ex, Sarkeensian, Grayson, Stephan Tolito (as editor for Kotaku), Phil Fish, and Leigh Alexander. There might be one or two more but these are the main ones. If this continues to a point where that list grows so much that we cannot have anyone covering it, that... would be interested but a near impossibility. I am not worried about the bulk of our independent sources "disappearing" as you claim. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that only negative or involuntary 'involvement' (eg harassment by gaters) confers a conflict of interest, and being chummy with gaters online does not, but now it's because 'other sources' are writing about that harassment? Either a source is reliable or it's not: we don't single out individual contributors to exclude because they've been targeted by a movement whose entire MO is targeting people who say things they don't like. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes we do. Sources are evaluated on case-by-case basis, though we do consider the works that they appear in. Standard practice here. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:RS does not give so much leeway for 'evaluation' that POV motivated editors can discard any source they don't like on flimsy justification about 'involvement.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in policy which says that when a source becomes the center of attention of other sources, that makes the source "unreliable." Your argument has the entirely perverse effect of encouraging one side or the other to make a source they don't like "unreliable" merely by attacking that source, which you claim makes that source "involved." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "unreliable", I said "no longer independent". We can use "dependent" sources with caution, but we'd prefer that if the same info can be sourced to independent ones, we use that. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's absurd and has no support in Wikipedia policy anywhere — you're effectively creating a heckler's veto by allowing harassment and criticism campaigns against people to affect how we consider that person's work.

I can find umpteen Reddit posts, YouTube videos and tweets calling the Washington Post biased for its coverage of GamerGate — are the Washington Post articles now "no longer independent" too? Where does this rabbit hole end? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To both NbSB and TaraInDC - Please see WP:QS under WP:V policy, specifically that because her article is a central facet of the details of GG, she has a conflict of interest; also see WP:IS essay that gives other policy reasons. This makes her a dependent source for WP purposes. This does not mean we cannot use her future work for sourcing but it does mean that if we can source a fact she stated in her piece to an independent source, we should replace her piece with that source. But if she's the only one stating a point to be included, that's still fine. No, just because reddit threads claim a source is biased does not change its status here; I am strictly speaking when a person becomes a necessary part of the neutral GG narrative as Alexander has. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reading of policy creates an unacceptable heckler's veto on otherwise-impeccable reliable sources and I reject it entirely. Basically what you're saying is that "The Washington Post hasn't been the subject of enough criticism and harassment yet; but if we wait another week, maybe then it'll get attacked even more and will then have a conflict of interest." Your position encourages criticism and harassment of sources by making it so that if the criticism and harassment becomes newsworthy, that source is then considered "involved" and "dependent." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so we're only going to aide Gamergate in silencing the women it singles out for intense, hateful, personal harassment? This is absurd. This is an entire movement centered around attacking people who say things it doesn't like, and you want to give them the power to award a 'conflict of interest' to anyone it pleases. There is a very detailed footnote that outlines specific cases where a source may be ruled 'questionable' because it has an 'apparent conflict of interest.' Can you point to specific wording in that note that would apply to a journalist who was harassed by a movement most notable for using harassment as a silencing technique? -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You both are overdramatizing what I'm saying and showing the problems that I pointed out below that you want to ignore the process of good encyclopedia writing to pile onto the GG side. Remember, I didn't say Alexander's future articles would be unusable, just not preferred if there are other sources that say the same information. You need to detach from the emotional aspects of this and remember we are writing a clinical article about this. If you can't do that, you should not be writing on this article. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To add for NSNB: the reason this is a conflict of interest is that the site that Alexander is editor-at-large for has its ad pulled due to Intel's action, and as such she has a conflict. I very much doubt that WA Post will ever be under that type of scrutiny to worry about. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These tone arguments are utterly unconvincing. Your section below about your 'larger concern' was nothing short of inflammatory and your decision to lecture all the editors on this page who are in your view "decidedly anti-GG (or definitely not proGG)" while ignoring the squadron of SPAs and POV warriors is extremely telling when it comes to your own biases. You are, to my knowledge, the only one who had broken the 3 revert rule on this article leading up to its umpteenth protection today, and we both know that isn't the first time you've done so. Please don't presume to tell other editors they're not sufficiently 'detached' to edit this article. Please stick to discussing the article and refrain from speculating on the mental states of the participants. Leave that to neutral parties. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the fact there are SPA and meatpuppetry attempts here, and will also continue to make sure that those attempts to sway this article are not given in to. But I'm aware that editors like you are refusing to adapt the proper neutral stance to this article, and this is another example of this. Alexander and Gamasutra now have a conflict of interest, and as such, their sources are not pristine -not unusable, but just not the favored ones to be used. This is long-standing practice on WP. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the fact there are SPA and meatpuppetry attempts here, and will also continue to make sure that those attempts to sway this article are not given in to. But you're only lecturing the non-SPAs and non-POV pushers. Instead, as has been pointed out more than once, you're pandering to them, and reverting edits that they don't like. That, combined with the edit warring, makes you look like a hypocrite when telling me that I'm not 'detached' enough from the article.

Alexander and Gamasutra now have a conflict of interest, and as such, their sources are not pristine -not unusable, but just not the favored ones to be used. This is long-standing practice on WP. I'm asking for a particular portion of that extremely tightly written definition of "Conflicts of Interest" that relate to Alexander, not another assertion that it's there. What you're advocating here is actually a very dangerous idea in the long run: making Wikipedia complicit in the silencing of dissenting voices by an angry online mob. I don't see how the policy as it's currently written considers being the victim harassment for expressing an opinion some find objectionable a conflict of interest in and of itself. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not just "lecturing" the non-SPAs. I've been debating the SPA and meatpuppets too. It's a tug of war. And "making Wikipedia complicit in the silencing of dissenting voices by an angry online mob" - well, I wouldn't describe it like this but we also have to be clinical about this, and that means that if a source gets "tainted" because the GG side triggers a series of events that make the source a conflict of interest for future articles, that's what we have to do. But remember you keep ignoring what I said: future Alexender pieces can still be used, they just become dependant sources because of the conflict of interest, and we put more value in independent sources than dependent ones. If Alexander is the only one to report in a factual manner about a GG event written in a neutral way, even on Gamasutra, there's nothing stopping us from using it; the only change that happens now is that if, say, the NYTimes writes on the same event later, we replace the sourcing for the factual aspects. We are not silencing those that get targetted by GG, just making sure we're aware that we'd like to use other sourcing if it is possible. That's far far far diffeerent from what you or NBSB are trying to claim I'm saying. In addition , your language still shows the emotional charge we cannot take on WP. I know harassment is wrong, but we have to be clinic and not write this article with that attitude; we include that of course becuase that's what the sources say but if we are prejudging any party in this before editing, that's not appropriate for the article. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be modifying your position somewhat from some posts to others, with some being emphatic about Alexander's "COI" and others less so, so I'll just say that based on current policy there is no sound argument that Alexander's existing Time article is in any way probematic, and that at the absolute worst a possible 'conflict of interest' might require discusion: my reading of the policy does not in any way indicate that she is to automatically be treated with suspicion.

But your editing here has been disruptive. Talking about 'being clinical about this' and informing a fellow contributor she's being "emotional" aren't going to change that. Not that I agree with your assessment - I think it's just a lazy way to discredit me - but I don't see anything in wikipedia policy that implies that edtiors must be automotons. At most there are rules about civility, but you can be incivil without being emotional and vice versa. I'm not aware of any 'no showing emotion' clause.

Just as with the dismissive response to this talkpage discussion, which left me wondering why I didn't just blindly revert and call it good, I am beginning to regret my decision to err on the side of 'not starting drama' by refraining from simply reporting your edit warring. Your discussion below, while couched in 'neutral' terms, was quite simply inflammatory. You seem to have made this personal, and your decisions to frame me as being 'emotional,' 'not detached,' by telling me again and again that I'm somehow trying to 'skew' this article and 'pile in' sourced information that you think is too critical of gamergate. Everyone has biases. It's inevitable. But when an editor refuses to acknowledge their own while repeatedly pointing out those of one side of the discussion, that becomes disruptive. The accusations from the POV warriors are bad enough, but coming from you, an edit-warring admin who is positioning yourself as a 'neutral' party in this discussion, it's downright insulting. No more lecturing me about my bias, please. See to the plank in your own eye and let someone who's not involved hand out the yellow cards. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever say that the current Time article by Alexander is a problem? No. You're overreacting with far too much emotion which is the problem here, and putting too much emphasis on the harassment angle. I'm not dismissing that as an issue in the larger GG debate, but in writing this article we have to be hands off about it, and cannot let that drive us to paint one side in a very bad light (beyond the basics that the sources give) , which you have continually pushed. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Some in this section and elsewhere have, and as I said I think you've been vaguer in some comments than others, so I wanted to lay out my position in full as plainly as I could. Who's overreacting?

I think your concern about "paint(ing) one side in a very bad light" isn't very helpful, though: we should be framing this as a WP:WEIGHT issue, not a problem with 'piling on against gamergate.' If you think ideas or issues are being given too much or too little weight, explain how and where, but there's no point where we go 'nope, that's too much negative information about the gaters' and call a moratorium on further additions that might be perceived as negative. Your concern about 'piling on' seems rooted in an assumption of bad faith about other editors who you have been suggesting are doing this deliberately to 'bias' the article, and that isn't a fair assessment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed out at least one specific case below: the quote by Amanda Marcotte in the "attack on women" section says nothing that hasn't already been made clear by RS - that the harassment was seen as misogynic. The earlier discussion of the implied nature of the harassment isn't going to disappear, but this quote only exists to pile on more. That's the problem here, and when you and others argue that, paraphrase, we have to make sure this article doesn't succumb to those that harass women, that's putting an emotional bend on the writing which we cannot use as an encyclopedia. We're not here to correct the injustice (nor correct the sourcing imbalance), even if it should be obvious it is wrong. We call that side out once on it because the bulk of the press does do that, and that's all that should be said on that aspect, and then move into actually trying to acknowledge the issues within whatever balance we can make from the sourcing (knowing that the anti-GG side will be better covered here). This is fundamental to writing articles on controversial topics on WP which I've been through before and know how clinical everyone needs to be, and that's just not happening here. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's one case, and one that I haven't even been involved in. Hardly damning evidence that justifies telling everyone who is either 'anti' or just 'not pro-' gamergate that they're 'piling on.' Working on actual, actionable problems is much more helpful than making vague accusations. When you're telling a large number of editors, over and over, that they are biased as if that claim alone is enough to make whatever change they are working for or against invalid, you're only contributing to a combative editing environment where you imply bad faith on the parts of the contributors you are saying are 'piling on.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The other damning evidence here about the attitudes of some editors is the immediate assumption of bad faith towards SPAs. SPAs are not immediately bad - often they are but we are supposed to assume good faith otherwise. In this particularly situation we need to be aware there's a lot of people attempting to swing the article towards a proGG slant, and we can point out why we can't do that, but we should not immediately dismiss them just because they are an SPA or IP, and that's what I'm seeing a lot of as well, and a sign that one may be emotionally charged to a point that they are unaware they are biasing this article or creating a battle ground. I don't have any personal care about which way GG ends up going (save for the death threats and harassment part) , so I'm able to see the problems that are happening here with clarity, and there are clearly others that are seeing this too. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The other damning evidence here about the attitudes of some editors is the immediate assumption of bad faith towards SPAs. That would be a neat trick considering I don't even bother checking a contributor's history unless they show up and immediatley start crowing about how "Know Your Meme" is more neutral than this article. Oddly enough I'm seeing you do a lot of this: telling someone they're 'bad' rather than showing them. Can you point to places where I have dismissed someone who was credibly editing in good faith as an SPA without addressing their complaints?

I don't have any personal care about which way GG ends up going (save for the death threats and harassment part) , so I'm able to see the problems that are happening here with clarity, and there are clearly others that are seeing this too. And once again, informing us you're unbiased doesn't make it so. You keep ignoring this comment, but I'm going to keep making it: you are the one who's been breaking 3RR. Your claim of neutrality is simply not credible. You're involved. You have a point of view. You are not neutral. Being invovlved sin't inherently bad, but claiming you're not is dishonest. Who are these 'others?' Why are you so intent on framing yourself as neutral, and why are you trying to paint so many fairly reasonable editors as POV warriors? Are you aiming to be the last man standing when the "activists" get topic banned? -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear on this. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It follows that with "The word 'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: . . . the creator of the work (the writer, journalist) . . . Any of the three can affect reliability." So that means whether the journalist is a third-party is an important consideration. No one can really consider a writer and former editor for Kotaku to be a third party when the whole controversy started out because of allegations regarding Kotaku. For those who respond that the allegations are false, even if that were entirely true it would not change the fact that Kotaku is not an independent source regarding this matter. People with official ties to Kotaku and long-standing professional history with the outlet should not be considered independent either.

The idea that someone who writes for Kotaku in an official capacity and was once a high-level staff member there can be trusted as a source about people criticizing said outlet is absurd. On the other hand, talking to GamerGate people or talking about GamerGate on a radio show does not affect the independence of a source. Note that I am not talking about bias here, which appears to be what some are talking about above. This is a matter of professional independence. Alexander cannot be reasonably considered independent of Kotaku when she is a writer and former editor at the outlet and Kotaku cannot be reasonably considered independent of the controversy. Staff at Kotaku have actually said they are not covering the issue as they would like because of the controversy implicating one of their journalists. Even if they do not adhere to that perfectly, the fact they consider it a legitimate complaint suggests we should as well and that, by extension, means we should regard Alexander as having a conflict of interest and thus not treat her as a third-party source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, using Alexander is fine per WP:RS, unless you can point to specific wording that would give her writing in outlets like Time a conflict of interest. Trashing her isn't going to do it: you need to connect all the trash talk to specific sections of specific policies that you think relate to your arguments. Even if Kotaku were unreliable - it's not - writing for an unreliable or COI'd source does not irrevocably 'taint' you and prohibit any of your writings elsewhere for the rest of your career from being used on Wikipedia. Hell, even Milo has some publication credits in real news sources that might conceivably be usable somewhere on Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy has been pointed out why you are wrong. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. As above, I'm asking for specific wording that relates to Alexander's writing in, for example, Time. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether the author of a piece can be considered reliable is a key consideration that affects a source's reliability, not just the publication in which a piece appears.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire reason we consider certain publications reliable is because of their editoral oversight. We trust them to select the right people to write their articles and to fact-check and review them to ensure their accuracy before publication. Major publications like Time and The New Yorker are better at this than us, which is why we are able to use them without needing to perform extensive original research vetting each article that's added to an article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. If a an editor with a strong bias (I am not saying Alexender is this in the present case) writes in an RS, the "reliability" of that source not not automatically bless the article as fair game for us to use. It could be okay if the bias does not show itself, it could be a problem. Sources are evaluated case by case, not work by work. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My problem with this is that gamergate loves dismissing sources because they're 'biased.' I think that's far too easy and too vague a complaint, and it's one that's been leveled against far too many journalists already. While there may be other cases where there could be legitimate concerns, we're talking about using Alexander as a source at all in this subthread, remember, calling into question all of her writing on gamergate including her piece in Time. In this case, it's clear that there are no legitimate reasons to call the editorial oversight of Times into question. What I'm trying to discourage is the gater 'let's see what we can dig up' approach to discrediting women with unproved opinions. That's not the approach we should be taking. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading yet again, this has not about "using Alexander as a source at all", it is about being careful in the future with any sources from her. They aren't invalidated by the dependence of her to GG, they are just not the best sources to use if there are others out there. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No one can really consider a writer and former editor for Kotaku to be a third party when the whole controversy started out because of allegations regarding Kotaku. For those who respond that the allegations are false, even if that were entirely true it would not change the fact that Kotaku is not an independent source regarding this matter. People with official ties to Kotaku and long-standing professional history with the outlet should not be considered independent either. The idea that someone who writes for Kotaku in an official capacity and was once a high-level staff member there can be trusted as a source about people criticizing said outlet is absurd You are not the only person in this discussion expressing 'concerns' about Alexander. This subthread (among others) has very plainly been about Alexander in general, not hypothetical future articles she may write. You're the one who introduced the topic of hypothetical future articles: prior to that we were discussing the validity of her existing sources exclusively. If you need further proof, scroll up and find the very first time Alexander was mentioned in this discussion thread. And yet you're telling me I'm the one 'being emotional' and 'misreading.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Editorial oversight is only one part of the equation. Independence from the subject is important for all sorts of reasons in determining reliability. Were Nathan Grayson to write a fully-vetted piece for The New Yorker attacking GamerGate would we be treating his piece the same as the countless people with no connection to the controversy? Of course not. That would be stupid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a weak argument, though, because it's absurd. There's no reason to think that The New Yorker would ask Grayson to write anything but maybe an opinion column (which we would obviously treat as such wherever it was published). That's one of the reasons they're a respected news source: they don't do that kind of thing. You can't argue against a respectable publication's editorial oversight by asking 'but what if they did something no respectable publication would do?' -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If they did do it, that would not suddenly make Grayson a reliable source on the controversy. The reputation of an outlet on its own is not sufficient to cover for other problems with a source. Alexander's independence is a reliability issue that is distinctly separate from any considerations regarding Time magazine itself. No amount of editorial oversight changes the fact that Leigh Alexander writes for Kotaku and was previously an editor at Kotaku. She is too close to the controversy to be considered an independent source. Just because she wrote the piece for Time magazine does not take away from the fact that it is her writing and not a Time staffer's writing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A better way to say it is that Alexander's piece in Time has to be evaluated for three factors: we know Time does have a reputation so they aren't going to let Alexander get away with slander or outright falsification, so their reputation is a net positive; Alexander (prior to the Gamasutra piece) is slightly biased as a video game journalist on one side of the debate, so that's a net negative; and finally the content of the article is presented about as factual as one could expect and not written as an opinion piece, a net positive. As such, the Time article by Alexander is probably fine. But we can't just judge on any one of those points alone. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Except, it is not about bias. It is about independence. Leigh Alexander is simply too close to the subject. Hers is not an outside view of the situation, but one that is going to be informed in large part by personal and professional loyalties. That is why independence is one of the criteria for reliability because we need an outside view.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I agree with the current assessment of her as an 'involved party,' but there's absolutely no argument for calling her involved at the time those articles were written. Gamergate didn't freak out and start trying to ruin her career or get advertisers to drop support of Gamasutra over her writing until afterwards. A single provably false accusation of 'nepotism' against one of her colleagues at one of the publications where she writes does not render her 'involved.' Would you argue that, because Alexander wrote at Time and gamergate is obsessed with discrediting her, anyone else who writes for Time is tainted by her involvement? We're not playing six degrees of Nathan Grayson here: if we let any connection with an 'involved party' affect the usability of a journalist as a source, we're going to run out of journalists really quickly. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

At the time they were written she was only involved as a member of the group (not an individual) of one side of the debate. There would be a slight bias but for the most part the Time article should be considered mostly independent because of Time's reputation, and the fact that her piece was meant as more factual than opinion (compared to the GAmasutra one). But take the hypothetical and extremely unlikely case that Time allowed Alexander to publish a full-on emotionally charged rant without labeling it as an opinion piece. If Time let that through like that (and without apology later), that would bring future articles from Time from any editor possibly questionable as an "independent" source, because Time should never have published something like that, and without clearly marking it as an opinion, implicitly stating their side in the overall issue. Again, this is likely never going to happen with Time (they'd not allow that type of article in the first place, and even if they did they would clearly mark it op-ed), however, this has what has happened to Gamasutra - not only being part of this now, but the fact that the piece from Alexander was not marked op-ed (which they do have ability to do), meaning the staff shares the same POV. Doesn't invalid Gamasutra as a source, they are just very much no longer an "independent" source for covering this at the time being. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that you guys have written over 5600 words total arguing about the validity of a source that doesn't even exist. Bosstopher (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's really not true. Masem has for some reason been talking primarily about a hypothetical source since about the midway point of the discussion, but that's by no means the only topic here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is zero harm in discussion. And I have to use the hypothetical because presently there are no articles that exist that might be an issue, but we do have to be aware that going forward we are going to have to start watching the use of some of these sources. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's really no point in saying that, though, because until an article has been written we have no way of knowing whether or not we'll have to be 'careful' about using it. Saying so assumes a) that Alexander will begin writing problematic articles and b) that editors will begin using them in problematic ways. So it's a distraction, and one that has unnecessarily complicated this discussion to the point where you've been accusing me of 'misreading' a discussion which you have decided is now entirely about hypothetical articles and not existing ones. As the discussion about her existing sources is in fact ongoing, your repeated injections about hypothetical future sources are just muddying the waters. Please stop worrying about sources that haven't been written yet and focus on the ones that are actually being challenged. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So we've got a whole lot of text above. Can someone tell me (preferably in 4 sentences or less) why Alexander is not considered a reliable source on Gamergate writ large? Also if we're considering the Time piece relatively more reliable than the Gamasutra piece I'd like a pithy explanation of that decision as well. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue of reliability, it's the "dependence" now; since her piece at Gamasutra is central to Intel's decision, she and Gamasutra are dependent sources as directly involved parties, still reliable but future articles of theirs should be replaced with more independent sources if they exist for the same facts, but otherwise still fine to use. Her existing piece in Time is fine, since that was before the Gamasutra piece; it might have a bit of bias as a game journalist, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: This "dependence" refers to this piece and the relationship was asserted because Intel pulled ads after the piece was published? Protonk (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the right piece, but only became an issue after Intel pulled their ads and it was established that Intel's reason to pull was over that specific article. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So how does that make the original piece dependent in any way? Had intel not pulled ads what would've been the problem with using the piece? Protonk (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said the original piece is suddenly now dependent, but that in the future, now that Gamasutra's finances (and ergo Alexander's job) has been impacted by this, future articles should be considered dependent. Mind you, the original piece itself is very opinionated (in contrast to her Time article), and we have not actually used it save to identify it in the Intel ad-pull aspect. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that makes a little more sense, though I'm not sure of the logic whereby an organization which has its ads pulled by a company is now more problematic. If a newspaper wrote about a local coal company and then the coal company pulled ads, why would that lead us to believe that future stories from them should be treated with more suspicion? Protonk (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They are dependent, and WP values independent sources over dependent ones, particularly if we start getting into contentious claims. For example, and strictly in the hypothetical, if Gamasutra suddenly had a piece today about questionable business practices at Intel after the ad-pull issues, that would be very suspicious - not immediately one to reject, but we'd really like to see confirmation from others knowing that Gamasutra has been financially hurt by Intel's decision. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very specific hypothetical where the general result is to claim that articles on "gamergate" from GamaSutra are now dependent because intel pulled ads over an opinion piece. Sure, if GS suddenly decided to investigate intel that's certainly a factor to weigh, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about writing on game culture which GS has done for years. Now they're party to it because an advertiser had an opinion? Given that intel likely pulled ads due to an email campaign (and one is in the works with NVIDIA as well), that's a line of reasoning which terminates by proscribing sources from any outlet with advertisers susceptible to public pressure. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not speaking to any potential site that there's current email campaigns to remove ads from - until it actually happens, and the site is affected in a financial matter. It presently only applies to the specific situation with Gamasutra and Intel as relating to GG. Gamasutra for all other topics remains a perfectly fine RS. But because Intel cost Gamasutra money (loss of advertizing revenue) as a result of the actions of the GG side, we just need to keep in mind they are no longer an uninvolved party. That's why the other sites are still not in question because they haven't been touched financially by anyone's actions yet. And to what Tara has been saying, this is all the hypothetical; nothing needs to change now, but we just have to be aware what might come going forward. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, Devil's Advocate thinks she's involved because of the accusations with her co-worker at Kotaku, Nathan Grayson, and that all of her writing should be used with that involvement in mind. Masem thinks her existing writing is fine as it's being used in the article now and we should be 'careful' about any future articles by her. I think her existing writing is fine, period, and that handwringing about future biased articles seems like an excuse to take a jab at her credibility. I personally don't feel that the Time piece is any better or worse than the Gamasutra piece, but there are fewer excuses for 'concerns' about Time from the gamergate crowd, so it's simply easier to use that source in an already embattled article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not merely that accusations were made against a co-worker. What Grayson was accused of cuts at the core of Kotaku's credibility as any reporter for an outlet engaged in journalistic impropriety taints the whole outlet. People closely associated with that outlet can generally be expected to be involved. Regardless of whether they had hung him out to dry or circled wagons around him, one cannot consider those associated with Kotaku to be independent on this matter. Independence is a criteria for reliability. A reliable source has to be a third-party and Leigh Alexander is not a third party because she is a regular writer for them and a former editor. You snark above about how you think my reasoning suggests that Time magazine is suddenly not reliable, but that is completely different. Alexander has, as far as I know, never written for them before, let alone on a regular basis, and has never been a member of their staff. That is not the case with Kotaku.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What Grayson was accused of cuts at the core of Kotaku's credibility as any reporter for an outlet engaged in journalistic impropriety taints the whole outlet. No, it doesn't, because those accusations proved to be completely baseless. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to get how this works. Whether the allegations were correct or not, the allegations in themselves mean we cannot take any reporting from Kotaku or anyone very close to Kotaku as being independent. It is those allegations of journalistic impropriety at Kotaku that started the whole thing off and that means people with close connections to Kotaku, such as Leigh Alexander, should not be treated as third-parties.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You claims have been thoroughly debunked. Even Masem doesn't regard the existing articles by Alexander as problematic. There's just no substance to your argument.

Incidentally, can either of you point to the section on 'dependence' in WP:RS or WP:V? Wikipedia:Independent sources is, I note, an essay, and I see no mention of 'dependence' in the main policy. I can only recall 'independent sources' being particularly important with regards to notability concerns. Once Kotaku had been cleared (and remember, the fact that these allegations are false has been published in sources entirely independent of Kotaku) then there should be no concern about conflicts of interest, because there was no longer any reasonable justification for regarding the site with suspicion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

And so, a POV tag should remain. Skrelk (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We've addressed the POV aspects numerous times on this page, and have come to the consensus that there's little we can do to correct the fact that the press will bias their reporting on this. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've provided links, in my previous post on this talk page to several unbiased sources. If you take out Vox, Verge, Gawker, etc, most reporting is unbiased, and the raw facts from some of the factually credible biased reporting can be rendered NPOV, and suitable. Skrelk (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And we're addressed those already and sme of them were already being used, and one fails our RS policy. Additionally, no reporting on this will be unbiased, and we are using the least-biased sources to set the framework of events and core issues. That's all within POV policy. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You also removed cites to the Los Angeles Times and The Telegraph — both of which are impeccable mainstream sources. So basically "If you take all of the sources out that I disagree with, then the sources are unbiased." Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are really low quality sources, to be fair, even if they are reliable. There are any number of other sources that could replace them, and for the better, although I don't see why the sentence has to be loaded with references; two sources seems good enough, anyway. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty resolved. I'd also point out that the entire foundation of gamergate is straight out of The Paranoid Style in American Politics. It requires (as entre) acceptance of a conspiracy between journalists, indie developers and various other actors. All reasoning stems from that, so sources which don't reaffirm this specific worldview are untrusted or biased. Rather than trying to find bias you're looking at the outcome and judging intent based on that. So we're not going to satisfy claims of neutrality for this WP:FRINGE position without treating it as though its fundamental basis weren't a complete fucking mess. It's impossible. What we're going to do is try to describe the movement using the more reliable sources and summarize from that. Using those we would all try to make the most neutral possible summary, but not without granting, in the voice of the encyclopedia, the megaphone to a fringe viewpoint. If doing so makes the gamergate position seem beleaguered, cruel or dare I say sexist, then that's rough, but it's how it has to work. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim that GamerGate backers have legitimate concerns is not a fringe position, and it does not require the acceptance of a conspiracy, it alleges that journalistic ethics were violated. As is, the article is granting the encyclopedic megaphone to the anti-GG side of the issue. And I would point out that you have biases on your part. Skrelk (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is convenient when it's needed to make a loud stink over perceived bias by insinuating that tenuous connections represent in-group circlejerking and privilege granting and therefore disqualify sources which don't buy the line that it's just all about vidya. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that every single source which disagrees with GamerGate is doing so because of some massive agreement among every journalist to be biased rather than the fact that a large number of people think GamerGate is attempting to intimidate women and other social critics of video games into silence is, yes, what we call a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Claiming that every single source which disagrees with GamerGate is doing so because of some massive agreement among every journalist to be biased". That's not what people have been saying, and you know that's not what people have been saying. If you and Tarc and TRPoD and Ryulong could stop attributing willful misinterpretations, that would be great. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hilarious though that he linked to a Tumblr .gif, I just... Loganmac (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to remove a template that says 'Do not remove this until the dispute is resolved' The article is clearly slanted towards one direction. Whether that's the absence of reliable sources in the other direction is to be discussed and hopefully to be resolved. That's what a NPOV dispute is. Some people don't think the article is neutral, tag it, then discussion ensues. It's also disheartening to see so many shortly closed recent discussions. I'm sure some are for good reasons, while others...not so much. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When the same arguments that have long been discussed and come to a conclusion by people new to the debate (and in a case like this, where we know there's outside influences to try to change this), closing retreading discussions is acceptable. Until something new is brought to the table to point out the problem, it's wasting the time of editors to readdress. that's why there's an archive page for others to review and determine what new information they can bring. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind linking me to that consensus you mentioned in your first post under this header? Tutelary (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Just go through every single fucking archive of this article and see the same thing get rehashed every other thread by a brand new voice bitching about the same exact things as every other voice that came before. This article is beseiged by single purpose accounts seeking to push a pro-Gamergate point of view on the page by removing everything that they consider is anti-gamergate because of some conspiracy they have in their minds that everyone in the media is out to get them and that only people who are as vindictive and pro-gamergate as they are are the unbiased voices in the crowd. That's why Milo Yiannopoulos is being touted as their savior right now because he acts just like they do and wrote something that put them in a positive light and put everyone they've been attacking in a negative light.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Laurie Penny

Is the Laurie Penny citation appropriate? kencf0618 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I didn't revert it just now because I didn't want to make two unrelated changes in one edit, but I'm off to take a closer look. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• I've removed it. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • She's a notable feminist author and journalist, so despite the strong language I believe that she should be cited as a non-gamer commentator. kencf0618 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the the article, it states (This article was previously published on Laurie-Penny.com—Comments are open and heavily moderated by the Don't-Push-Your-Luckdragon. Deal.) It's a self published source being published on a new source unedited and unreviewed and should not be used as a result. Tutelary (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Unreviewed, true, but neither Cory Doctorow nor Boing Boing are chopped liver. kencf0618 (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but I'd submit BB can do a good job of letting the reader judge that, rather than presuming it'll apply transitively. Looks like a straight reprint. I think it's just easier (And clearer, if the reprint is why we're reading this) to cite BB. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A self published source doesn't not become a self published source when it's literally copy and pasted from her own website to BoingBoing (which sounds like it would be a questionable source in itself) . They literally took it off of her website and put it on their own website. It was not under their editorial control, and for such a big controversy like GamerGate, should be full heartedly dismissed as it's a SPS. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what happens when something that was initially self-published is reproduced elsewhere: it's now being published by BoingBoing, not just by Laurie Penny, so it's no longer self-published. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not super thrilled with its use in the article, mind you. I will look through the talk page to see why specifically it was added, because we are offering her as an opinion but clearly one which stems from an analysis and one which is very pointed. So I'd like to make sure we've got the best quote from her if we decide we want to keep it. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think that there are better quotes in the article that make the same basic point without using the word "cunt" 3 times, like this one: "The people who are so unspeakably angry that women dare, they dare with their stupid ladyheads and evil ladyparts, they dare to come into their special boy spaces and actually demand a voice, they don't understand why not everyone can see how right they are, how noble, how absolutely justified they are in their cause." Kaciemonster (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That'll work. kencf0618 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's SPS, it's biased as hell and frankly her opinion it's irrelevant and barely important to video games Loganmac (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, a notable opinion outside gaming. kencf0618 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't post the quote to start a discussion on whether or not the source is relevant enough to include in this article, considering there's already a discussion about that literally right above me. I posted it because there is already a quote from the source in this article, and I wanted to suggest an alternative that was essentially the same but didn't use the word cunt.Kaciemonster (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Laurie Penny pulls no punches, so I didn't include that particular quote gratuitously or for shock value. WP:IDLI is not sufficient. kencf0618 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think something weird happened with the formatting and I thought Loganmac's reply directly below you was to me, so I was reacting to that. Sorry, Logan. I can definitely understand why you'd pick that quote in particular though. I just think that there are other quotes in the article that would serve the same purpose without including a gendered slur. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected

Fully protected for a few days due to edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 23:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is CLEARLY a POV dispute, how about adding a POV tag? Skrelk (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: This article is presently undergoing dispute resolution about WP:UNDUE, and there is a POV dispute on the article. It probably needs at least one of those tags. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Fourth time, if my count's correct. Does this topic have a cooling off period...? kencf0618 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins only, that will surely fix the POV Loganmac (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently no actual POV issue to address; just the same, tired arguments by the same tiny handful of off-site agitators. Tarc (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the preponderance of reliable sources suggests that the issue is about far more than harassment, and that censorship is a major issue which the article does not adequetely address, it is pretty clear it has issues. The consensus has been clear for a long time, Tarc. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is a distortion and cherry-picking of facts to suit your own minority point-of-view. This point-of-view will never be represented in this and related articles to the degree that you wish it to be, as this project does not gives undue weight to minor critics. The sooner you realize this, the sooner this topic area settles down. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I will mention that NorthBySouthBaranof and Ryulong, both of which have taken potshots at "gaters", together account for over 30% of all edits to this article. I will provide direct quotations and links if necessary.--ArmyLine (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not here, you won't. One last time I'll tell you, for behavioral issues, the article talk page is not the right place, take it to your user talk pages and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 20:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Why'd you tell him to do that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Better than having that kind of discussion here; and that particular approach is not quite what I told them to do per my referencing WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 21:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I recommend following WP:PER for any potential edits to a protected article. Dreadstar ☥ 02:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

My larger concern here...

Trust me, I'm in no way trying to change the current broad tone of this article - however, I am seriously concerned that there is a problem with editors that are decidedly anti-GG (or definitely not proGG) trying to use this as a platform to include any negative comments about the proGG as they can under the guise that because we don't have really good unbias sourcing and the media is painting the proGG side in the negative light, we can pile up the negativity without violating policy.

If you haven't done it already, a good exercise for those editors on the non-proGG side is to read some of these Reddit and other forum threads about this article. Yes, we know there's outside influences, but when you see why they are angry about it, and read this article in light of those comments, the issues they point out are glaring. And many commentators in those thread recognize our hands our tied by WP's sourcing policy but they recognize that some of the ways we include specific elements is creating a bias against them when there are other ways - from the same set of sources - to present the same information without that same bias. Obviously there's some on these forums that decree the use of any of the sites that they are protesting (ala Polygon, RPS, Gamasutra) but there's a few that are definitely aware that what we're trying to write here is not something we can just swing to their desired version but should be able to do what is basically the same job using the same sources but without the amount of negativity that this has towards proGG. Not to change the story, but to tone down the rhetoric.

What we should be doing is making sure that if we are including opinion on this article, it is a necessarily opinion to express a point that cannot be more neutrally worded or a more neutral quote used. For example, on the issue of SJW, one could easily pull a definition that paints those that use the term in poor light, but there exists a more neutral statement that still denoted it was a dejoratory term but avoids the opininated language about the proGG side.

A thing to keep in mind - the initial week or two of events from Quinn's allegations was heated and a lot of people wrote about the topic in an emotional manner. With the main events now past and people thinking and writing about this in a more rationale manner, we should be looking to retain the existing content on the factual matters but try to swap out and/or remove highly opinated pieces that aren't really necessary to establish the context of this article. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If the reliable sources are depicting something negatively, it's not our job to write the article with a purposeful intent to cover up or minimize that negativity.

I do not read what pro-GGers think of this article any more than I seek out the opinion of anti-GGers about this article. I honestly don't care what anyone on either side thinks of it. I care what the reliable sources say, and they're pretty much unanimous. One can either believe that there is some sort of evil globe-spanning journalistic cabal conspiracy to support women who are being harassed, or one can believe that it's the honest opinion of a whole lot of people from a wide variety of backgrounds that the movement's goals are poisonous and retrograde. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between writing about an actual action that, at the larger scope, taken as negative (like the harassment issues and the doxxing), and writing on the opinion of those people that did that action beyond what other sources say. For example, there is no way we can remove the "fact" that the original harassment aspects were called misogynistic becauase a plurality of sources, all across the bias spectrum, used that terminology. But if one were to describe the entire proGG side as misogynistic now, that's not a commonly shared viewpoint and should not be included at all even if we can source a quote for that.

You should care what outside sources say, though we can't let them influence us directly. My point is that we are using the sources at our disposal in a manner that is not very encyclopedic even through it might seem like we are. We have to be clinical and that's not an approach I see being taken by others here. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I don't think you understand identity politics very well. You can stand on a soapbox all day long and proclaim that you aren't something, but if others carrying your flag are doing that same thing... your flag is going to be seen as standing for it, whether you like it or not. There likely are a lot of well-intentioned folks in the movement. Unfortunately, their flag is covered in the muck of nonsensical and false allegations about an obscure female developer's sex life; ongoing harassment of that developer and others; third-grade-level sex jokes; continued attempts to silence dissenting voices in the gaming community; the absurd idea that journalists should have neither opinions nor any social contact with other journalists; and a strange, inexplicable fixation on the ethics of social criticism and indie games rather than the ethics of multi-billion-dollar AAA publishers with a known history of actually buying positive coverage or having writers fired for negative coverage.

As reliable sources have noted, going after a game industry news site for publishing a female writer's opinion is not doing anything to dispel the notion that "the misogynist language used by many supporters has put the movement at the center of the conversation about how women are treated in the gaming industry." [13]

The word "GamerGate" is now permanently associated with misogyny, much as "states' rights" became permanently associated with segregationism. Which is why Zoe Quinn long ago suggested that those truly interested in issues of journalism ethics come up with another hashtag. The baggage has already attached and it's not going anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Identity politics are not Wikipedia's concern. Wikipedia's concern is being accurate. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate is identity politics, and the article is currently pretty accurate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It is true - Zoe Quinn and her compadres are all about identity politics. Given that a writer for Breitbart has gotten a syringe in the mail at this point, the idea of "guilt by association" would look pretty bad for you, no? Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, false equivalencies. One scary thing happened to poor Milo (and it's not as though Gamergate is the only, shall we say 'controversial' thing he does.) A shitton of scary things have happened to a whole lot of people who have said things gamergate doesn't approve of. This is not parity. This is not 'both sides are at fault.' There is simply no comparison, and that's why the mainstream media isn't writing articles about how much harassment gamergaters are getting. If the 'other side' were only making the kind of isolated claims of harassment that the gaters have made, it would be a very different story. But that is not what's happening. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That Gamergate is quintessentially identity politics is actually a pretty shrewd observation. On their own terms they're a movement that see's "gamers" as an oppressed group who ae being marginalized by the wrongfull promotion of the views of women or people friendly to women - absolutely identity politics, albeit a cargo-cult, fun house mirror version of it. That may even be the seed of a lede rewrite that would make even Masem happy. 18:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, reddit is a cesspool only the barest of bare steps above 4chan/b/. An encyclopedia project that is to contain topical articles that reflect what reliable sources says about that topic is not even remotely interested in a discussion board and the opinions of its denizens, any more than Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories takes stock of what the Free Republic has to say about the president's birth certificate. Such places do...not...matter. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You just proved my point. I'm well aware that Reddit is far from any authority but I'm not looking to them as that, I'm looking at what they see and what we can improve on, and treating their concerns in as much as we can within WP is something we should be striving for, not ignoring just because Reddit is Reddit. I mean, I'm reading past the noise when I go there, but there are enough self-aware people at these forums to simply ignore those words is doing exactly what this article explains that we're painting the entire proGG as crazy, wacky people due to the actions of a few. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem - please stop attempting to appease POV pushers by attempting "balance" - it weakens the article, it doesn't actually make them happier (only a fully counterfactual article would), it's repeatedly resulted in us substituting strong sources for weak ones and it basically constitutes a futile excercise in troll feeding. Just stop. Artw (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

BS. We need to be clinical, hands-off, no investment in either side of the debate, and we are presently not. We can do a whole lot better while still being true to how the story is presented. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And we portray the debate as the reliable sources portray it — that is, if the intent truly was to have a conversation about "journalism ethics," framing that conversation around allegations about an obscure indie developer's sex life stemming from a spurned ex-boyfriend's "strange, rambling attack" was catastrophically stupid and inappropriate, which leads inevitably to the suggestion that the actual intent was to harass and slut-shame a female developer because some people didn't like her game. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to remove that. That's what the sources are saying, and until the sources changes, facts we can't ignore. We have to say that or we're not summarizing the sources. But we don't have to repeat that point over and over and over and over by using every possible anti-GG quote to support it, which is what is happening in some places on this. It's why I say its a pile-on - the point has been made, there's no need to keep rubbing it in even if there's a plethora of sources that try to do that. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We ignore them because their opinions are irrelevant. This isn't a blog. If a redditor comes here and wishes to to conform to the the norms and policies and guidelines of the project then that is great. If they come here screaming "THIS ARTICLE IS SO BAISED!!!!!!!!!!" and try to gut the quite reliably-sourced misogyny POV, then they should be run out on a rail. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A sanctimonious call for patience and understanding and 'seeing the other side' targeted at the 'anti-gamergate' editors rather than the small army of SPAs and POV pushers? Lovely. I'll pass on reading through KiA, thanks. My blood pressure can't take it. If this is about your opposition to including the basic information that "Social Justice Warrior" is a pejorative, remember that you're the one who rejected the alternative of leaving the term out to avoid having to say something bad about the gaters. And incidentally, informing us that you're neutral and anyone pushing back against the legion of SPAs is not doesn't make either of those things true. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPA is an essay, while often cited, is not a rule. As long as an editor conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I really couldn't care less what topics they edit, as long as they can justify them. POV pushers are hard to define and have an infinite scope. I was charged as a POV pusher when I removed a BLP violation some vandal had put. Anybody can use it and we have to be cautious. That being said, there does need to be consistency in the ideals of whether to allow something to be explained, left out, criticized with sources, or some other variant. Tutelary (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rule, but I didn't say it is. It is a problem, and one that Wikipedia encounters frequently, especially in internet kerfuffles like this one. Pretending that there's nothing wrong with an article's talk page being overrun by editors with few or no contributions outside a particular article and subject (especially when they are also advocating a very strong opinion of that subject in defiance of reliable sources) would make Wikipedia far too vulnerable to offsite canvasing. It doesn't have to be a policy to carry weight in an argument, and pointing out that it's an issue here is very relevant when one side is being called out as not being understanding enough of the other side. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Afd's are the only place where I've seen SPAs have their opinions discounted and be rubber stamped by admins, as it's at the behest of the article's staying or the article's deletion. Whether we'd want to disregard them for other things, like this, should be the nature of whether they are being disruptive or not. Whether they were authoritatively canvassed or not. We should also be natured of WP:AGF, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Also whether they're following guidelines and policies or not. But should they fake their 10 edits and spew BLP crap on this talk page, that's the end of AGF and I'm willing to propose blocks. In short, I don't think we can discount SPAs based solely on them being SPAs, let's look at what they say first. Should they say something like 'WP:CENSORSHIP means that we can qualify Zoe Quinn as a -insert derogatory term here' then disregard all you want. I'll be at your side. But if it's more like 'I really think more due weight should be focused on this source, here's why:' then no. Tutelary (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not advocated for the SPAs' 'opinions being discounted;' I'm saying that when an article is being besieged by a large number of very inexperienced editors complaining about 'bias' because the article describes the movement the way the mainstream sources do, lecturing other editors about how they should be nicer to the poor SPAs and try harder to see their side is simply not likely to lead to a more pleasant editing environment - it's hostile to editors who are trying to abide by Wikipedia policy, and reassures those who aren't that they are in the right. A single SPA can be managed. A number of them all loudly declaring the article 'biased!!!1' against their side can make productive editing very, very difficult (and it has). So whether it's policy or not, pointing out what's actually going on here when responding to Masem's impassioned plea for compassion for the pro-Gamergate POV pushers is entirely relevant. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, the mainstream sources aren't portraying it the way the article is either - it is overly reliant on fringe views, the views of people involved like Zoe Quinn and Leigh Alexander. Indeed, a great number of sources suggest that the idea that it is centered around misogyny is simply false - the vast majority of the sources depict the harassment which has taken place not as the center of the thing but being a result of it. What we need to be doing is reporting on reality. The harassment. The censorship. The hacking. The attacks on journalists on both sides. Ect. Just because they're newbies doesn't mean that they can't tell something is wrong, and the reality is that several users here are what have been referred to as "culture warriors"; when they see people referring to them as "misogynists" and "virgins" on the talk page, it is not surprising that they get upset. The sad fact of the matter is that the hostility towards these people is very real and very much here, and many users here appear to be happy to turn a blind eye towards this misbehavior.

If you look at the DRN about this article, I've been working on categorizing sources, and the reality is that the bulk of the sources we're citing in major news sources do not appear to support the idea that it is primarily about harassment - harassment is a part of the thing, but a number of sources have noted that the focus on the idea that it is misogynistic and all about harassment is a tactic used by one side (the so-called culture warriors, SJWs, activism-central journalists, whatever you want to call them) in order to discredit the other side. Given the massive amounts of harassment which has been leveled at people trying to report on the issue, and the fact that several sites have actually changed their ethics standards as a result of this (one of the only tangible things which has actually happened as a result of all this), it seems very hard to say that the article is not putting WP:UNDUE notice on one side's point of view. Both sides have engaged in wide-scale harassment and issues with the integrity of games journalists has been something which has been brewing for many years.

We definitely need to cover the harassment, but it should be noted that it has occurred on both sides, and we really should be focusing more on facts than opinions. What happened, when, who was involved, ect. as well as the background of the players involved. The goal of Wikipedia is to present information to allow people to make up their own minds, not to make up their minds for them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop going out of your way to discredit Zoe Quinn and Leigh Alexander? And would you stop fucking saying someone's been called "virgin" when I've said time and time again that it's the self-appelation of one of the centers of this discussion rather than a pejorative name for them? And for fucks sake no one is saying that Gamergate is solely about harassment and misogyny. We're saying that it's an aspect that cannot be played down. And there is no proof that anyone from the journalist/Quinn side of things has leveled any sort of tangible harassment to the gamer/gater side of things. Your claim above that Breitbart received a syringe in the mail is unsubstantiated, particularly because Breitbart is not known for its integrity to begin with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that "both sides have engaged in wide-scale harassment" is simply not supported by the available reliable sources. No doubt this is because all the reliable sources are biased, as usual. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is beyond the pale to treat gamergate as on the doorstep of fringe material, largely due to the focus on reframing a campaign of sexism and harassment as some sterned nosed but blameless inquisition into "games journalism" that just happens to be incredibly gendered and grew out of some spurned ex saying that a woman who made an unremarkable and until then basically unremarked upon game had slept with some dudes. It strains credulity that we would want to cull sources due to or demand equal time for this viewpoint as though it were not stitched together post hoc rationalization for marginalizing critical (especially but not exclusively female) views. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not about pulling sources or giving proGG more time, but just using more neutral statements when such are available, and cutting out some of the more negative opinions that are not essential to established points. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that you have reverted this article, well, a lot in the past 24 hours? Several of those reverts were removals of tags and other pretty clearly unhelpful changes, but at least five were unambigous content disputes. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] You're simply not the person to be lecturing anyone about collegiality right now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The last two are still under discussion so the changes shouldn't have been made in the first place. The rest weren't needed. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not how WP:3RR works. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The last two changes shouldn't have been made, so it would seem to me they don't count. The first two changes are two changes which weren't needed, anyway. He could have fielded the changes out to other people, with the same result. I wish someone had told me about this rule when there was edit warring going on over Sommers. Let's focus on more important things than of petty bureaucracy. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that is quite simply not how 3RR works, and I'd encourage you to familiarize yourself with it if you think otherwise. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then whoever(s) it is that warred with me over Sommers deserve(s) to be given a time-out. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As I recall it was multiple 'someones' just because you were reverted more than once does not mean someone else broke the three revert rule. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I must have warred back and forth with someone over an edit at least twenty times. The responsible persons should be suspended. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. If there were only two participants in the edit war you seem to remember, you were likely in violation yourself. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of editors here that have done edit-warring like revisions too (I'm not dismissing that claim), but that's deflecting the issue. I'm looking at the fact that there is definitely a spirit of "we can put tons of blame on the proGG side because we have no sourcing to stop us presenting the other side", which is not how we write encyclopedic articles. Clinical, neutral stances, which some of these changes were not appropriate or. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that your perception that 'anti-GG' editors are out to 'get' gamergate is inaccurate, and that you should consider your own behavior on this page and how your own biases might be informing it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in my point that this article is not as clinically hands off as it should be. Taking comments made by other major contributors clearly shows that they do not want to give any sort of positive treatment of the proGG side at all, and thus the inclusion of certain quotes or framing of certain facts is indicative of this. Again, I'm not arguing that we need to change sources, or change the overall approach and structure of this article - as it clear, this is pretty decent in terms of presenting the situation as the media gives it. But there's specific detailed choices that have been added or were added and removed that, when you tie in with the percieved attitudes towards the proGG from certain editors, tell me that there's a pile on of that dislike being pushed in the article when it does not need it. No one editing has to support proGG but we also have to realize that there are legitimized concerns here and they are people too, and perputating the intense dislike that some members of the press have taken to the entire group is not in any way helpful to this article, and why it will continue to be a target of external pressure to be changed.

Again, I implore those that think this article is fine to step back realize what is being said about it elsewhere and taking the position of a proGG that was otherwise not involved in the harassment aspects. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What, pray tell, are we supposed to be giving a "positive treatment" to? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't (unless new sources come), but that does not mean that in lieu of a positive treatment we load this with negative treatment of them. Yes, we have to address the clear statements that the harassment was seen as misogynic, we have to point out that there's a large perception of the lack of creditability to anything from the GG due to the nature of the 4chan basis, etc. - that's all stuff that's unavoidable due to the high prevalance in the sources. But we do not need to repeat it any chance that a source quotes that in a different section.

Another way to put this is that by using so many quotes, even from reliable sources, it reads as an attempt to swing the reader to be 100% certain that the proGG is in the wrong. Unless other aspects are broadly condemned in sources, we should not be trying to influence the reader and instead let them come to their own decision if something is ethically right or wrong, particularly if we cannot present point/counterpoint due to lack of sourcing of one side. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

An example of my concern: the lengthy summary/quote from Amanda Marcotte that is presently under "Attacks on women". Nothing in that quote is a new viewpoint on the overall picture of this situation; we've established the attacks were not taken lightly by the gaming press, that it was misogyny-based attitudes, and etc. Completely unneeded, at least at that level of detail. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in my point that you're wrong. Have you considered the possibility that the 'members of the press' (and most outsiders) have taken an 'intense dislike' to the entire group because that is an entirely rational and reasonable position to take? I really don't care what 'a pro-GG' might think about this article. Fact is fact. We're not going to whitewash it because there are members of the movement who don't consider themselves misogynistic and want us to ignore what the movement is actually doing and just parrot what it says about itself instead.

I think it's high time you stop trying to position yourself as some kind of neutral mediator here. You flagrantly broke 3RR today - again - trying to correct the 'bias' of the editors who you are now scolding for not being sympathetic enough to the POV pushing SPAs. You're not neutral here, and your 'concern' about editors making use of reliable sources that are unfavorable to gamergate is unwarranted. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Except "members of the press" have not. The more distant people are from the games journalism establishment and the activists, the more malfeasance by the games journalism industry comes to the fore. Look at Digitimes; it is based in Taiwan, and talks about it in terms of being concerned about the continued fight between the video game press (which acts as PR for the industry) and its customers resulting in depressed sales of consoles in November and December. The Escapist has been quite friendly towards them, and we know that several journalists were very aggressively hostile towards them on the GameJournoPros mailing list for not deleting the thread about GamerGate. If you look at The Telegraph's article, it interviews Zoe Quinn... and then interviews GamerGate folks. And the two are night and day.

The Escapist ended up apologizing for their reporting on Zoe Quinn's original claims of being harassed in late 2013 because she was the only one who made the claims, provided no evidence but her word, and they had interviewed no one but her, resulting in folks harassing the people who Zoe Quinn claimed to be harassed by. They changed their policy to avoid such reporting. How many of the articles only interview Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and/or Leigh Alexander? How reliable are they, in light of that fact?

Alexander's article about the "death of gamers" has been described as involving "name calling", and it resulted in Intel pulling out of advertising for a website because they didn't want to be associated with it.

The reality is that there is a little tribe which is very upset over the idea that their members might be called out for ill behavior. It doesn't matter if it is true or not; what matters is whether or not you're in the group.

You talk about not wanting to be associated with the GamerGate folks, but let's face it - when the chips have come down, we've seen changes in ethics policies and companies pulling their ads from websites. Those are the -facts-. In fact, they're just about the only concrete things which have happened!

I'm not interested in the more esoteric theories of the GamerGaters; I'm not a part of their tribe. My concern is presenting reality here on Wikipedia. Not your version of it, not their version of it, reality. If it is unflattering to someone, so be it - it isn't our job to make people look bad or good, it is to present things in a neutral, impartial, even-handed manner to our audience so that they can draw their own conclusions. We don't need feminists ranting about how awful harassment is; we can show it to the audience by speaking about what actually happened. Likewise, we don't need to tell the audience about how awful censorship is - we simply need to present what has happened (the DMCA on YouTube, private pressure to pull down and suppress discussion, removal of stuff from various websites, ect.). We can talk about what has actually happened - the FBI being contacted, journalists getting syringes in the mail, advertisers pulling out, Phil Fish attacking people via social media and himself getting attacked in turn, the hacking and general offense against The Fine Young Capitalists... these are all things which have happened. They're facts. They're stuff which we can sink our teeth into.

When people want to selectively omit facts, or put opinion in the article in place of fact, that's POV pushing. I think that the situation, as it is, speaks for itself. If you feel that presenting the facts in an even-handed, neutral manner is going to make "your side" look bad, then you are not doing it right. Harassment needs to be in the article, but it needs to be all the serious harassment, not just some of it. When you've got people getting syringes in the mail and death threats driving people from their homes, that's stuff worth reporting. When you have websites getting compromised or systemic campaigns of harassment against people or groups, that's stuff worth reporting.

It is not our job here to make anyone look good or bad. It is our job here to let reality speak for itself. And indeed, that should be YOUR goal, as an individual; the neutral point of view is not just something which is good for Wikipedia, it is good for LIFE. If you are willing to look at everything neutrally and objectively, you'll never have to lie to yourself, and you'll always end up on the right side in the end, once you've gotten all the information you need.

All this talk about pro-gamergate and anti-gamergate stuff is ultimately a bit misguided. Our sources may be biased, but it is our job, as Wikipedia, to not be biased. If a source isn't giving us any facts, then what value has it? What is it adding to our world? Opinions might be noted, but when we talk about stuff, our primary goal is to present reality, not whatever any group's spin on that is, whatever that may be. If a source has major, verifiable factual errors in it, then it isn't reliable and isn't useful to us either, not for telling people what is going on.

We can present opinions, but when we're presenting facts, it is about presenting facts. We can talk about what the claims of the parties are, because that is the fact of what people are claiming. But we try not to do that to too great an extent, and we generally try to avoid mixing fact and opinion without separating them out clearly.

But what actually happened happened, or it didn't; if a source conflicts with verifiable reality, then we know that that source is wrong. When The New Yorker claims that Grayson wasn't attacked, and we have Kotaku directly addressing the attacks, and numerous other sources addressing them, and tons of posts from the time attacking Grayson, we know that The New Yorker did not fact check their article. When someone claims that Grayson wrote a review of Depression Quest, we have all sorts of evidence that no, that did not, in fact, ever happen. Reality is not subject to opinion, and if a source conflicts with reality, then it is the source that is wrong. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr. Protonk (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your attempts to discredit high quality sources you don't like and elevate lower quality ones you do are completely transparent. I'm not going to waste time here addressing your laundry list of 'concerns,' as they've already been addressed again and again. The piece in The New Yorker is fine. Alexander's article in Time is fine. Your 'categorization' of sources is your opinion and your opinion alone. Proclaiming yourself to be neutral doesn't make it true. You have a very clear, very strong bias, not to mention a rather uncomfortable fixation on toing the line of WP:BLP by taking jabs at women like Quinn and Alexander.

Those are the -facts-. In fact, they're just about the only concrete things which have happened! That is aside from the women who've been hounded out of their careers and the chilling effect it's having on women still in the industry who run the risk of being the next victims every time they step out of line and say something the gaters don't like. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This was meant for another of your extremely long replies to me, not this one. Oh, well. You've made multiple lengthy, rambling replies to me in the past few hours all full of the same half-truths, distortions, and irrelevant digressions. You sure do seem to be fond of the Gish Gallop. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem is exactly righ about this, and I might suggest to everyone asking him to stop that they should re-read WP:OWN#actions, as many of them have been repeatedly made here, and all of us the regulars have committed one or the other at some point - I think the only one missing from the list is that of signing our additions at the article itself. There has been way too much in particular on this talk page of "anyone that rises points I disagree with should leave the page and not come back". Even if we stick to the sources we have published by the mainstream media, we as a whole are ignoring the essence of neutrality in the way we use them - to detach ourselves and to represents the viewpoints of each side in a way as accurate as possible, not distorted through the reports made from the other side; weight should define how much content is covered for each point, not the lens we adopt to report about them.

Every time NorthBySouthBaranof repeats yet again the call for "adopting the position of the RSs that are covering it" down to using their words and conclusions as our own, you misrepresent the neutrality policy which states that we should do exactly the opposite. Following policy is not an excuse to fail NPOV - we have more than enough resources within policy to ensure that both sides are fairly represented without misinterpretation, including the call to ignore any rule that is making the article worse. We could include the opinions of those pro-GG side directly as reliable sources, as any source is reliable about their own opinions; yet only anti-GG sources are accepted on that basis, and every time some pro-GG opinion is proposed it gets fought against and ultimately removed, skewing what have been added to include only opinions from one side, which is not even how WEIGHT should be handled - there's an upper limit to what should be included from one side of the controversy, and it has not been respected.

We have thrown WP:BALANCE out of the window; there's no way a detached reader would agree our current article fairly represents what has been published in reliable sources. I honestly think a good strategy would be to ban all editors who have participated so far in the article and let the rest of the community take over it and start afresh, to rework what can be told with the available references from a new angle, cutting off the broken dynamics we have now. Diego (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

The view that GamerGate has come to represent a campaign of misogynistic harassment is, far and away, the most prevalent view in reliable sources. Therefore, we present it in that due proportion. We do not need to present other views as if they have equal validity. We include a number of pro-GG opinions; if you want to loosen the sourcing requirements to allow more, then I'm quite sure we can find a lot more looser-sourced anti-GG opinions as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to, thanks for proving my point so clearly. Every time someone mentions neutrality you bring in those exact quotes, and my comment above explains why they don't mean what you think they mean, and how you're using WP:WEIGHT to imply that we should make the article unbalanced toward the press point of view and hide the other side in the controversy. In particular "proportion" doesn't mean "shape" - we can talk more about the press point of view, but we must do it with WP:IMPARTIAL tone, a part of NPOV that you keep ignoring every time it's brought up. That you have copied those parts of policy yet another time means that you really didn't hear what I was saying. Can you please stop copying those quotes time and time again? Diego (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"proportion" doesn't mean "shape" is a very good way to describe the problem here. It is very easy to pile on as much as the sources have, but for purposes of tone and not content, we should look to the detachment that the non-VG, non pop culture sources use, and when you look to things like the LA Times or the WA Post or the New York Times, they only descend into the overly negative to describe the initial harassment against the people. Most of the other sources - which I am not calling invalid, just emotionally charged and thus bias - use less detached language. All the major points in this article as it is are fine and in proportion, but it's the ensuing discussion that is the problem and that is something that we do have the ability to be clinical about. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth I appreciate your efforts Masem. Also, just as several have stated. I have seen a lot of NEUTRALS on Twitter saying even KnowYourMeme presents a more detached representation of events, in chronological order. It seems here for every one thing that happens, there's a shitton of new opinion pieces ready to twist it around. Like we got 3 sources calling Intel misogynyst. Don't be so guillible people, it's not a conspiracy theory, gaming journalism is a quasi monopoly, of course if it's needed, people are going to come up and defend Leigh Alexander or whoever. Just take an example, if you haven't followed GG just look this up and you'll realize for yourself. The game Kingdom Come: Deliverance, just a few days ago it reached 2 million dollars on their pledge. No SINGLE site has covered it, NOT ONE. Why you may ask, it turns out Daniel Vavra has been too outspoken of GG, yet they covered the game before GG. Examples like this there are tons, but I'm already being off-topic I guess. Loganmac (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

KnowYourMeme is not a reliable source because it is a user-created source. People can call out Intel for all they want. And the conspiracy theory is that the bulk of the gaters think that Kotaku et al are conspiring against them, and Milo posting the GamesJounroList thing is another spark they needed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever state KnowYourMeme is reliable? Loganmac (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. But what they've done doesn't mean shit here. And stop claiming there are conspiracy theories. No one has any fucking time to review games because of all the bullshit that's going on in Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there are conspiracy theories mate Loganmac (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gaming journalism is a quasi monopoly... No one reviewed this game because the creator is pro-GG." Those are conspiracy theories. And I'm not your mate, buddy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaming media consists of very few sites, at least mainstream gaming media, Kotaku, RPS, Polygon, Gamasutra and a few others, its journalists seem to be pretty close to each other. The view that Kingdom Come was not covered by media is held by Vavra himself, and I believe I should continue your phrase with "I'm not your buddy, pal" and so forth right Loganmac (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many more than that, and those are just the sources we find reliable. Woodroar (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A quarter to a third of those sources are defunct, and the rest don't cover the topic, apart from this and this. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, after having my contributions reverted on that page, I'm now officially done with Wikipedia, for a long while. Have at the article. I expect to return to find that gamers are the soft power arm of ISIS. I'm joking, but I'm not; this place is a mess. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha all it takes for that is a freelancer writing a blog on Gamasutra about that guy that compared GamerGate to ISIS and you got it Loganmac (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, would someone move the portal templates in the references section, or just make them a bit better placed, if possible?

The appearance doesn't come off well, and they push the references to the side. There isn't a "See also" section, so I guess maybe they could just be moved to the bottom of the "References" section? Dustin (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding more Adam

A while back there was a discussion about Using the APGNation interview to source the opinions of Adam Baldwin on the controversy. Barry (is it ok if I call you Barry?) and Logan both agreed that this was acceptable, but then everyone sort of forgot about it. The guy has a photo in this article and is recognised as a big player in the affair, may as well cite what he has to say. [19] Here is my proposal (As you can see I am not the most prosaic of writers):

There was active discussion of these events on 4chan and Reddit, and figures like Adam Baldwin (who was the first to use the hashtag #GamerGate on Twitter) highlighted the issue to the population at large. Baldwin gained interest in the movement after watching a YouTube video on the topic, which he believed highlighted "collusion and conflicts of interest" in gaming journalism. Baldwin has also raised concerns regarding Social Justice movements in gaming, stating "Whenever I see the term social justice, I think injustice, because it’s not justice."

Can anyone else think of anything that can be gutted from this article.? Bosstopher (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just cut his photo out of the article here then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be fully in favor of that, they are serving no purpose. Artw (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any real need to depict Adam in the article; he's a major figure to gaters, perhaps, but a pretty minor one judging from how little he's mentioned in the reliable sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well when I filled the article with photos he was the only other "pro-gater" figure I know we had photos of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't be citing APGNation: apparently someone asked about its use recently at Wikiproject Video Games and it was roundly rejected. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interviews are fine for statements from the subject of the interview.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an exception in WP:RS for unreliable sources that publish interviews. What policy are you basing that statemtn on? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing over a technicality in the letter of the policy. General practice is that interviews are reliable for noting the opinions of the interview subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about how interviews can be used, but it doesn't follow that interviews published in any source are usable regardless of the source's reliability. Other sourcing requirements still apply just as they do to any other type of source. That's not a 'technicality in the letter of the policy:' it is the policy. For example: no reliable, mainstream source is giving Adam here the time of day about Gamergate. Ordinarily that would mean that his opinion was not notable enough to include - that is, unless we allow ourselves to do an end-run around WP:RS by making an 'exception' for interviews published in otherwise unreliable sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We probably *should* mention he originated the hashtag in the body of the article, that's relatively uncontroversial and we shouldn't have to go to a caption to see it. Since it's ended up giving the movement it's name possibly some mention of that in the lede would even be appropriate. 19:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it actually is controversial if he actually did - he was the first to us, but there are claims (however true or not) that some on the GG preped that term for him to use, making that far too much of a tenacious fact to include in the lede. It's fine in the body, and that's it. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We're going to include a conspiracy theory that a famous actor was prepped by a bunch of unemployed neckbeards (/v/'s main demographic), who slaved over the perfect catchy phrase to represent their movement, and then handed it over to him with utmost secrecy so he could use it as a hashtag? [to clarify unemployed neckbeards is not meant as an insult, there is nothing wrong with being an unemployed neckbeard] Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not going to include the conspiracy theory aspect but becuase of the iffyiness of Baldwin's connection to the hashtag, it should absolutely not be highlighted in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post states: "Exactly who coined “#GamerGate” is up for debate. Actor Adam Baldwin claimed credit, but Quinn also tweeted screen grabs from 4chan chat logs she said show the campaign was orchestrated there." [20] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I know this is not a reliable source https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60 but since 4chan and the IRC kept public logs, you can see there was no actual planning to make him involved, GGers were just as surprised of his involvement as anyone else. It'd be hilarious if somehow you guys include that getting Baldwin was an evil ploy by 4chan. Also none of those screencaps show anything even related to #GamerGate as a hashtag before Baldwin tweeted it. And the only time Baldwin is even named in the IRC is because of Alec Baldwin which is hilarious that major publications haven't pointed out that overlook Loganmac (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading the WP source and the issue. The argument isn't that there was planning to make Baldwin involved; rather, that there was planning on 4chan to attack and harass Zoe Quinn using the hashtag. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If "Famous Actor Who Said Stuff About Gamergate" is Baldwin's only connection to the entire affair, then he probably does not need to have his image included in the article, as it makes him appear to be more of a major player than he is. If that leaves is with 2 images of one side of GG and 1 on the other, then we can live with that . It isn't the Wikipedia's fault that one side consists of largely faceless & anonymous voices. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well he is also sourced as having coined the term GamerGate, but I'm not really sure if that warrants his photo place.Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We have enough sources mentioning Milo's involvement beyond just the Liana Kerzner piece that has way too much weight in this article. I don't see anything wrong with having Not-Alec Baldwin's photo here, though. He did give the controversy its namesake.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Baldwin coined the term, and it's particularly notable that a Hollywood actor is involved in this. And if you want more notable people, as someone else stated, Milo is the most "followed" of them all, but since you guys don't want to include the GameJournosPro thing, then I guess his picture would be pointless, since the only mention he has here is because Liana K attacked him Loganmac (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Baldwin was the first person (as best we can source) to use the term on Twitter, but there is very strong doubts if he actually coined the term. The present wording avoids going down the rabbit hole of whether this was a fabrication by the proGG side by simply just asserting the clear fact, Baldwin's use of the term and support for that side. That's all we should say about him, and thus that doesn't make it significant enough for the lead, compared to the involvement of other major players here. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 October 2014

Add POV dispute tag. There is an ongoing POV dispute, sources differ in POV, and contrary to the claims some have made, the other side of this issue is not fringe. A POV tag is also called for, since the article was protected due to the POV dispute. Skrelk (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no legitimate dispute. single-purpose accounts count for very little in this project, especially in WP:BLP-sensitive areas. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What Tarc said - assorted sockpuppets, SPAs and reactivated accounts popping in to tell us we should ignore WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to back their weird little cause is not a real dispute. Artw (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets + SPAs are a strawman here. Looking at this page it is very clear that many active, or intermittently active editors are raising this issue. EDIT: I would also point out that neither of you are sysops, and should not have closed this requestSkrelk (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, count me amongst the active non-SPA editors who think there is a legit POV dispute over this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." So part of me is thinking there's no way this should be added. But if a tag indicating dispute amongst editors requires consensus to be added isn't that a Catch-22 or something? Bosstopher (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've noted my issue above which I don't really want to call a POV (as we are using the best cut of sources but just presenting too much from some of them) to separate that from the claim that we aren't "properly" covering the proGG side enough, which has been explained many many many times that the sourcing is simply not there for that. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, The Sum of All Journalism Knowledge". Luckily for me, this helps in my machine verification project. :-) I do wonder what we're missing out by not covering the Top 10 YouTube Channel, Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged, forums interviews, and other material not written by journalists. — Dispenser 23:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral, credible sources have been provided above. Skrelk (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the same four you have posted before, 3 are in the article, one cannot be used as a reliable source. As such, there's nothing actionable here. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The reliable anti-GG sources are being given WP:UNDUE weight over the the reliable neutral sources. And before you start the 'fringe' song and dance again, let me point that reliable sources(techcrunch, forbes, even Verge), clearly establish that gamergate is not fringe. I'll also point out that the sources are being given undue importance in this discussion. A factually reliable biased source can be used, but the the bias cannot be transferred into the article, which is what is happenning here. Skrelk (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is undue weight, the solution is not to remove reliably-sourced commentary, the solution would be to include reliably-sourced commentary from the other side. If we can't find reliably-sourced commentary on your side... that suggests that there actually isn't undue weight, and that we're simply reflecting what reliable sources say about the issue. Due weight, I remind you, is not based on the weight of Wikipedia editors, number of tweets or vehemence of position — it is based on a position's prevalence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not correct, we can remove material to achieve a balance that matches the broad shape of the coverage by sources. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We could, but there is no reason to in this case, and there's certainly no consensus for doing so here. The current shape of the article does match the broad shape of coverage by mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit off topic RE this particular thread. I would argue though, that this discussion here in itself, has proven there is a legitimate POV dispute. Let me point out that I have not taken a side on this issue, except insofar as to say that much reporting of gamergate is cursory and inaccurate. Even so, this article does not match the broad shape, as most mainstream RS does attempt to explain both sides, rather than immediately pointing at 'ingrained' sexism issues as the article does Skrelk (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the only voice here who is stating that there is a lack of q neutral point of view in the article. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that the coverage of this topic is at this stage in history inherently biased due to the harassment doled out primarily by one side of the debate. There are people who have covered things impartially but the level of neutrality that is sought out by the "gater" side of the debate wants to completely downplay or eliminate content that speaks ill of them. Right now, the article covers both sides of the debate equally, as far as I can tell. That is, both the accusations of misogyny and harassment are given as much coverage as seeking changes in the ways that video game websites acknowledge possible conflicts of interest arising from the crowd sourced indie game scene. Much else that seems that people want to cover on this page is the alleged cover up or collusion that they assumed happened in the mailing list, which as far as I am aware has not been covered in reliable sources, or if it has they are already in use in the article right now. The main issue with the article now is the ongoing petty dispute between the expressly pro-Gamergate crowd and the established Wikipedia editors whom they associate with the anti-Gamergate crowd because they have been trying to inform the other party on how their contributions will not work here. That is not something the POV tag will solve.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Again with the absolutes, Ryulong. Did you not see my comment in this very section saying I agree with tagging the article? To remove all doubt, I believe this article does not comply with NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I clearly disagree that WP:NPOV is violated on this page so there is no reason, as per CIreland below, to use {{POV}} at the top of this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, the tag is not there to document an existing consensus that the article is biased, but to inform readers that some editors consider it below our standards and may suffer frequent back-and-forth changes in its controversial content, and to alert editors that they need to discuss the problems until an agreement is reached to remove it. And definitely not all established Wikipedia editors agree that the article complies with NPOV. Until a rough consensus is reached that the article can't be significantly improved in terms of neutrality, the tag should remain in place, as it's standard practice in controversial articles in development. Diego (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego, the documentation at Template:POV and long-standing consensus is that {{POV}} may not be used for that purpose. Quoting specifically from the documentation: Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. The purpose of the tag, when used, is to attract additional editors; it is not supposed to be used to tell readers that some editors believe the article is not neutral. CIreland (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, I think you've told several people at this point that they are the only people expressing that view. Skrelk (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

CIreland, I've read the talk page of Template:POV and my post above was already reworded to account for that. The consensus for the tag is not to use it solely for warning readers, but it also doesn't dismiss that purpose as a valid one, and considers it beneficial. For readers and potential editors arriving to the article and finding it biased, here the tag would inform them that the article version is not definitive, inviting them to collaborate in making it better -which is something we want to encourage despite all the menacing language against SPAs; it certainly would be a more welcoming experience than the current combination of locked page and plain denial that it may have any problem. Diego (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Added POV tag. While I acknowledge the vocal opposition to the template, there was broad agreement that it was appropriate. While there may not have been a consensus to add it, this may be one situation (cf Bosstopher's comment about catch-22 above) where a lack of consensus indicates that the tag is apt. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you add it? It's controversial and lacks consensus. Revert it ASAP. You have Masem, another administrator, arguing against its usage so why have you just ignored all this conversation and added it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My opposite to the tag was based on that the main reason that POV is usually used cannot be fixed on this article (that we're not using the proper subset of sources for example), but per what Diego's pointed out, there's a valid reason to include it (for me, based on how I see there is a baising problem per above). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But yet there's so much discussion here (in this thread and above) that says why it is not applicable. The biasing exists because this topic is steeped in bias to begin with. There's no lack of neutrality in the article. It represents exactly what we can represent. It's not our fault that one side has bad PR after they began publishing someone's private phone number so she can be asked if she's the restaurant we are not to name. It's a controversial edit. It's not supported by consensus. It should not have been requested or answered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You have made exactly one specific comment about a section of the article you think should be changed because you think it represents bias. Other than that, all you have done is cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors. Slapping it with a POV tag is seriously premature based on how few constructive comments about needed changes you have made. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a lack of neutrality - a rare case in that it is not that we're being selective to the sourcing as we are using the best cross section of reliable sources and that those sources are showcasing a lop-sided view of things that we can't change, but the choice of specific quotes or phrasing used it purposely biasing the article that, while it may represent the sentiments of the sources, is not appropriately neutral reporting that we should do. That is, as Diego's accurately pointed out, a call to use the POV tag. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is literally no way for anyone to respond to an unsupported assertion like that other than by saying 'nuh-uh' to your 'uh-huh.' You have made claims that other editors who are 'bised' against gamergate (as opposed to your perfect, pure neutrality, of course) are taking advantage of the complete lack of reliable sources that present gamergate positively by 'piling on' negative information about gamergate, but you have done very, very little to back up this claim. Please stop pretending to know the minds of editors who have the nerve to edit this article while being 'not-proGG' and start making some suggestions. Don't tell me there's bias. Show me. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, there are far too many quotes in this article at this point in time. The situation is not resolved, so these are all "reactionary" quotes, and not with the necessary hindsight. But as nearly all of them are quotes from the anti-GG commenting on the pro side, that gives the appearance this is anti-GG. Some quotes are fine, but that's what is dragging down this article in its neutrality at the present time particularly in how the misogyny section is now split up as it immediately begs the hostile aspect of the attacks. Take the entire discussion of the Social Justice Warrior - it is a term that can be used without comment but several editors wanted to require a definition, and when that definition was used, they wanted a very scathing definition (towards pro-GG side) instead of a neutral one. Add in how SPAs (which is not always a bad thing) are treated on this page and there's clearly a problem in the attitude of several editors. Further, it should be patently obvious that we can be more neutral, neither trying to write the article to gain sympathy for those that were attacked nor condemning those that were on the attack, but that's not what the article does now. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are so many quotes because if things aren't quoted directly you have the pro-GG crowd complaining of bias and that these things weren't said. There was so much fighting over the fact that we say that the initial claims against Zoe Quinn were disproven that we had to triply source it. And attacks are inherently hostile so I don't know what the hell you expect can be fixed. And in this case, SPAs are a bad thing because the one thing they are here to fix is that the concept that the article isn't entirely skewed in their favor to say what they want it to, constantly throwing out sources that they think are biased against them because they aren't exclusively biased in their favor. To focus the article entirely on the fact that they think there's a conspiracy against them as an identity and to push games they don't like down their throats. To completely downplay or eliminate the discussion of the attacks initially and still perpetrated in the name of their movement without actively disassociating themselves from that aspect. To pester anyone that they think is critical of them as a group in whatever social media that they can. Do you know how many fucking times I've been sent Tweets (basically) saying "ur the most prolific editor to this page and ur telling us to get a life kek" because of what I've written on this talk page? There will just be new accounts with only 10 edits to them coming here day after day until the heat death of the universe whining about a bias that doesn't actually exist as far as Wikipedia should be concerned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Some quotes, to support the facts of this case, are necessary, and that's done fine in the first two sections. But the latter sections pull quotes just to use quotes and very few of them are "friendly" to the proGG side. We know the press has said what they did was bad, we do not need to drive that over and over with more quotes.

SPAs are not necessarily bad; many that have appeared here are not the type that are good, but that's not ruling them all out, and we are still required to treat SPAs with good faith to start. And yes, we actually should be downplay any attempt to create sympathy for those attacked (though explain how they have been affected like Quinn couch surfing is necessary), or villainize the proGG side any more than explaining that there were harassment attacks that came from that side that are considered misogynic. And you should actually see what some of these threads that they have on reddit and elsewhere about this article to know to what degree they have a few people here spelled out well, including Ryulong. Yes, there's a groupthink thing there that I have to read past, but the more thoughtful posts, combined with what I see here, show a strong bias that may be unintentional but is directing this article to be against the proGG side as much as possible, and we can do tons better than that without losing the encyclopedic information about gamergate. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no way to avoid sympathy or villainization when we are presenting what has been written on the subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And MSGJ, your claim that a lack of consensus for adding the tag is actually a consensus to add the tag makes no sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes there absolutely is a way to do it. We report on the events without personalizing it. We are required to be that clinical about it. Yes, we need to include that the reason these attacks were done was believed to be by misogynic attitudes in the gamer community, that we cannot eliminate, nor where that migogyn came from. But we do need need to keep bringing up how the attacks are seen as misogynic over and over. We have the ability to use the same source set but avoid using quotes that they have been given or opinions that have been made that are beyond the facts of the case. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But is what you claim is an issue even happening in the article though? We have multiple voices condemning the actions of the movement as misogynist because that's the prevailing narrative. What specifically in the article needs to change?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, that's a clear point that they were near-universally seen as that, so we mention it in one sentence, perhaps with a choice partial quote or two. And that's that that is needed to establish that. But the article right now tries to expand on more and more viewpoints that consider that all repeat that the attacks were misogynic; just because it is a majority viewpoint doesn't mean you need to hammer it home that much. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet that seems to be a point we have to make to the pro-Gamergate SPAs that keep showing up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The general trend of those coming in new to WP/this article is they want either outright removal of the misogyny aspects or other clear facts that are unavoidable from the existing press sources (unactionable) or add more arguments from the proGG side which typically are not from reliable sources (again unactionable). I am saying that we can tone down the rhetrotic that "harassment is bad, these people are misogynic", beyond making it clear that that view was shared by a majority of the press in one place in the article. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This was going to be a reply to Masem's reply to me above but I'm not sure where to put it now without breaking Ryulong's outdent. As Ryulong said, the frequent use of direct quotes are simply a strategy to cover the article thoroughly without having to edit war over every single blessed word. They are, in effect, due to the presence of emphatically pro-gamergate editors on the page, not the reverse. The fact that a majority of quotes seem to be anti-gamergate also very likely has something to do with the fact that there are very, very few reliable sources that would not seem 'anti-gamergate,' especially not to someone in the movement. Framing them as 'reactionary' is inappropriate: you can't expect there to be a whole lot of reliable sources discussing this issue when it's no longer relevant, so nearly all reliable news sources are going to be considered 'reactionary' by some. You are quite simply wrong in your assessment of the term 'Social Justice Warrior,' but once again I'll point out that those of us who felt it was relevant to mention that the term is a pejorative offered the alternative of simply leaving it out if stating that very plain fact was too 'anti-GG.'
An SPA is not necessarily a bad thing. A squadron of them all making the same flawed arguments and completely ignoring any effort to explain WP policy and procedure absolutely is. The SPAs and POV warriors are making editing this article extremely difficult. This movement is uniquely problematic in that it involves so many conspiracy theories about 'unreliable' media: in their online echo chambers the gaters been talking about 'hit pieces' and 'clickbait' and 'collusion' for months, and they've been carrying the same flawed but endlessly reinforced articles from those echo chambers onto Wikipedia. They all think they're experts on journalism who are qualified to determine whether or not the freaking New Yorker of all things fact checks their articles. With so much hostility coming from that corner, with so many editors here finding themselves having the same conversations and explaining the same basic principles again and again and again with each new person who wants to toss out every source that's 'biased' or 'unreliable' (in other words, any source that they don't like) and getting nothing but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in response, you should not be the least surprised that tempers are wearing thin. Your sanctimonious 'concerns' that we are not being sensitive enough to the SPAs and your completely spurious claims of 'antiGG bias' were simply the last straw: it's quite bad enough to be hearing these sorts of accusations of 'bias' from people who are only here on the project to whitewash this article. But you're an admin. You should know better. You didn't even have the decency to preach 'moderation' and 'understanding' to 'both sides:' you just blamed the people who have been trying to keep working on this article in the face of an extremely hostile, arrogant and dismissive brigade of pov warriors. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I just want TaraInDC to note that under a definition of SPA, s/he might be considered a SPA, considering you've only contributed to a handful of articles, although excessively and passionately, are in single digit numbers. Tutelary (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? The articles I've created are in single digit numbers, maybe - although that number is still higher than yours. And you can fuck right off with 'excessively,' thank you very much. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the use of quotes to support facts or where the popular opinion is clear, as to avoid claims of us as editors being impartial. But once we're past the facts, and start getting into the reactions, at a point where we are still too close to the event to really establish this well, excess use of quotes when most are from the antiGG side does create the imbalance that is in this article presently.

And there has not been a "squadron" of SPAs here - compared to the AFD, what's here is completely tame. Yes, many do not have understanding of WP principles and sourcing and the like and we have to repeat the arguments over and over about why the sourcing is fine, etc. As long as there's a proGG side, we're going to have that, and it's not going to disappear. But only a few I would consider being more demanding than not, and most simply are not aware. There's also a few good ideas from them time to time. And I'm saying this as an admin, meaning that I have to step back and look at all sides of an issue and make a determination at times which way something should be taken - and it is pretty clear this article is too much written to create sympathy for those harassed and condemn those on the proGG which is extremely far from an encyclopedic article on a controversial subject. We are required to take a much stronger middle ground here. The literature does not support this position, particularly when you look to the more neutral pieces like the New Yorker, and the Washington Post. They do not simply hand wave away the concerns of the proGG side, and do not spend too much time creating sympathy for those harassed or work to balance the proGG into their articles better. We don't have to change the narrative here, nor introduce more proGG points, but just tone done the rhetoric when we are looking to the reactions from the media. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions ruling

I looked at the ArbCom log, and I could not find a ruling authorizing discretionary sanctions for this article. The linked ArbCom case regards BLPs. Although this article does involve living persons, I don't believe the BLP ruling was intended to be interpreted so broadly as to cover an entire article simply because living persons are discussed. At least, the ruling should not cover sections that are not directly discussing living persons.Skrelk (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It does extend only to the BLP aspects, but not anything else otherwise. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what Masem said. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

One bit to add once unprotected

NPR on the Intel stuff. Last line is the one of interest that gives an RS that the Operation Disrespectful Nod continues to plan to do the same campaign on other sites. (This we knew but could not source appropriately.) --MASEM (t) 00:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NPR article uses Reddit as a source, and does not refer to it as Operation Disrespectful Nod. The source could be used to state that "GamerGate supporters are continuing to organize an emailing campaign asking advertisers not to advertise on various websites they oppose', or something to that effect. But it must be worded neutrally, and not written to sound like "GamerGate supporters are continuing their harassment campaign to pull advertising from journalists they consider objectionable" Skrelk (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not word it as such, more like "The GG supporters have affirmed plans to continue this email campaign on other sites that have published controversial articles." We've already got sourced details on Op. DN in the article (neutrally) so this would be fine. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine Skrelk (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Skrelk's "websites they oppose" wording — it's more specific than "controversial." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"That have published content they believe to be inaccurate, or 'anti-gamer'"Skrelk (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained descriptor of misogyny

This article calling misogyny 'ingrained' is clearly based on this quote:

sexism and misogyny are ingrained in video-game DNA, widely tolerated when not being openly celebrated

From this article by Rus McLaughlin on VentureBeat.

I question whether this singular affirmation means that Wikipedia ought to just agree with him, as if his claim is actually reliable.

What if other gaming authors disagree with this, and express that misogyny is not ingrained, not tolerated, not celebrated? Would McLaughlin's claim trump those somehow?

I find it hard to believe that such a sentiment has not been objected to with counter-publications, I think we should check for those before communicating this.

Doing a cursory search for example, I can even find a disagreeing article on the same site, also writing for "GamesBeat":

Why Gaming Culture is not inherently Misogynistic by Joe Yang.

Due to a lack of consensus on this issue, I do not think we should call misogyny an 'ingrained' factor, because if something is ingrained, I think that is like calling it an inherent trait, and clearly Yang disagrees with McLaughlin on this, and the authors hold equal weight since they publish on the same site. Due to that, I am adding this as a reference too, and discussing the controversy on this article. Ranze (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed and rehashed time and time again. Please read the talk page archives. There are lots of other sources or quotes we can use instead if you don't like that one, but the gist of it is that sexism is viewed as a longstanding problem in the industry — there are a wide variety of reliable sources describing it as such.

"Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem." -Washington Post [21]

"Online trolls have long attacked women in the video game industry. But during #Gamergate, it's gotten so bad that two women left their homes because they feared for their own safety, and the FBI has said that it will look into the harassment of game developers." -NPR [22]

I can find more if you want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am the editor who introduced that word, and it was just to replace the previous "long-time misogyny" which was much worse. You may have a better idea on a better descriptor from those sources, so please propose it, as neither the old nor the new term have a consensus behind it. Diego (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest that your rebuttal article doesn't really claim that sexism isn't a problem in video games — rather, it argues that the misogyny does not stem from bad intent by gamers but from structural issues in the community.

If nothing else in this article catches your attention, it should be this: gaming culture is not inherently misogynistic. Its institutions, its structures, hierarchy, its payscales, and its distribution of power may be misogynistic, yes, but gamers themselves are not misogynistic. Their beliefs and rituals are not inherently misogynistic.

That isn't claiming that sexism isn't a problem in video gaming — in fact, it's more or less admitting that there's ingrained issues of misogyny baked into video gaming. I actually tend to agree with his point that the misogyny is primarily structural rather than purposeful... but that doesn't make it any less of a problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NBSB, the view that this is "longstanding " is essentially original research as no single source makes such claim. As you say, this was extensively discussed, and no reference was provided that supported wording it that way. Any part of the article can benefit from new perspectives, and consensus can change. The Venturebeat article states (in bold!) that "gaming culture is not inherently misogynistic", so if reliable sources are adopting different and opposite views, we can't state anything in Wikipedia voice as if its description by the media is homogeneous. We could say something like "seen by a majority of journalists as an ingrained problem", "an ingrained problem of misogyny in an otherwise not inherently misogynistic culture", or other wording along those lines. Diego (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"long-documented" and "longstanding" are effectively synonyms, Diego. Not sure why you're trying to pick such a nit, but yes, we have sources that directly describe it as a "long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable" problem. Pardon me for paraphrasing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As you said, the full argument is laid out at the archives. I see there that you suggested a change later in the lead to "the sexist, misogynistic and trolling behavior of a vocal minority of the gamer community" that was not acted upon; we could include that improvement now through an edit request. Diego (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no shortage of sources on the relationship between misogyny and game culture. We can find a different one (or multiple) for the same claim but it's not as though that source stands alone. Protonk (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of those sources are editorials from the gaming press at issue. I don't see any neutral studies, or analyses coming to that conclusion. You can certainly say that misogyny has been present in elements of gaming culture, and that it represents a long standing point of contention, but calling it ingrained, or inherent is a bridge too far, and unsupported. Skrelk (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources from the gaming press admit that it has been an issue within the industry as a whole (in fact, most are about misogyny in games from the developer standpoint, and less from the gamer side), so that would be a completely appropriate self-describing source. I would agree that if the point was about misogyny in the gamer community and not attributing any bit to the development side, we'd want something more than gaming press to report that since that's non-impartial view. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If the lead were to be rewritten to clarify that the misogyny being referred to is is in the development side, and not the gamer/consumer side, that would make the article more neutral, but I'd question the accuracy of a statement that developers are overwhelmingly misogynstic. Skrelk (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But that's not true either. The lead is written properly to say that the sexism and misogyny is an industry problem, placing it both on developers and consumers. In the earlier part of the industry it was clearly more on the developers side, but as with the growth of social media, the aspects of that from the consumer side has become more apparent as well. Neither side is "clear" of that charge, so ingrained is accurate. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think "inherent" is the right description. Ingrained is fine. As for sources aside from editorial comment would we like for sexism in the games industry and the culture at large: We could take something like Mia Consalvo's article in Ada (among others in the same journal). There's a much older article here also on the same subject. this is more about the industry than the consumers, but it's descriptive enough. Dmitri Williams has a more general look (and one focusing on the connections between games and social issues) here (I don't have full text but I think I read it a long time ago). etc. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Make the following change proposed by NorthBySouthBaranof (at the end of the "In a nutshell" section), as discussed in the section above:

Change the current content in the lead:

"It concerns ingrained [23] issues of sexism and misogyny"

and

"the sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements of the gamer community"

to:

"It concerns chronic [24] issues of sexism and misogyny"

and

"the sexist, misogynistic and trolling behavior of a vocal minority of the gamer community".

Diego (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Only if the "long-standing" terminology is restored, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if you can provide a reference using those words. Diego (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It was removed? Trivially easy to source, as it's about the most famous fact about gaming that is known by the general public through the mainstream press. Here's Amanda Marcotte in the Daily Beast. [25]. We could use the word "chronic" if preferred, as it means longstanding. --TS 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually "chronic" would make sense as it has an emphasis on "continuous" rather than "for a long time", and it is sourced (which is a huge difference). I've added it to the request. Diego (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe these changes are definitely better than what is included at present.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These templates are for uncontroversial changes and we should be waiting for consensus before we request a change using them. I think reinstating 'long-standing' is a better solution than changing it to 'chronic,' which actually sounds rather less neutral to me. We don't have to actually plagiarize our sources to avoid original research: if the issue is 'long-documented,' then it is also 'long-standing.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tara, the initial suggested change had consensus when I first posted it; NorthBySouthBaranof had made after a long discussion a proposal that no one opposed, and I took it as acceptable and posted it here as the resulting consensus of that now archived thread. The problem has come for expanding the initial proposal to add a part that was still under discussion, but I've removed that part and reinstated the original proposed change. Diego (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it didn't. A suggestion from the archives that was 'unopposed' but never endorsed or implemented isn't 'consensus;' the discussion simply moved on. That was not the only place where the lede was being discussed, and the conversation is referring to changes to a very different iteration. You introduced the initial wording you proposed in this section and then made the edit request before anyone else had even commented[26]: other commenters in the discussion above were advocating for reinstating 'longstanding' or other changes. There should be no rush here, and there is no harm in waiting for a few replies before you declare 'consensus.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ingrained" is a much more appropriate word than chronic, as if you look back, the issues of sexism/misogyny in the past were more focused on the developers side (putting these into games) than the player's side, and the current situation can be seen to a degree as a net result of having that last so long - it's ingrained in the culture. Also in the full context of the second change, I would not change it. We know that the group that actually did the trolling was a vocal minority, but the statement is about the press' reaction and that would be to more than just that vocal minority but the ones that also got pulled into the actions. "Elements" is okay, but "subset" is better . (We don't even know if we can say "minority" since the size of GG is vague and unknown). --MASEM (t) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then to summarize the argument so far:

• There's consensus to change "elements of the gamer community" to "behavior of a vocal subset of the gamer community", with no one opposing that change. The "vocal" adjective bit should be safe to use, as it's well sourced by the references (and in particular [27]).
• There's no consensus as to what we should change "ingrained" or if it should be kept.

As these are proposed changes to two different paragraphs, I think we should keep discussion for them separate. Diego (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vocal is fine, "vocal minority" is sort of a laden term. "vocal subset" is a bit too clever (as it is deliberately broad yet trivially precise), but I'm ok with it over "elements", which is equally broad. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose 'vocal minority' and similar minimization, as it's not well supported by sources. We have strong existing sources that portray this as a pervasive problem. They don't say that all gamers are sexist (and neither does the current version of the article) but they do point out that it is an 'ingrained' and 'long-documented' issue, and that it's pervasive and generally accepted as a serious problem in the gaming community and industry, not just a some bad apples spoiling it for everyone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any unbiased sources that present evidence of a pervasive misogyny problem in the gamer community. The only sources that are claiming that are the outlets who's integrity is being questioned in the first place - Skrelk (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Since a source becomes ipso facto biased by asserting that there are toxic elements to game culture, I'm not surprised it doesn't get through those ever moving goalposts. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling gaming culture toxic doesn't make the source biased. If you could find a RS other than Vox, Verge, or Gawker that established the claim, then that would be fine. But Vox, Verge and Gawker have been pushing this narrative since well before GG erupted, and specialize in clickbait, getting attention. Their focus is on clicks, not unbiased journalism, and they are not an appropriate for such a contentious issue. -Skrelk (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

there's this and this just off the top of my head, or the sources I noted above in response to your comments on ingrained sexism. Or like, a hojillion other ones after a more concerted search. And let's also not convince ourselves we're awash in a sea of reliable sources asserting everything is awesome and nothing is sexist in game culture. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A Gamasutra blog can in no way be called a reliable source, we need one OUTSIDE the gaming journalistis in contention...I.E. a sociological study, or a mainstream source that doesn't directly rely on the gaming media. The daily beast source is CLEARLY editorial, NOT reporting. That is an editorial, making assertions, with little or no evidence, it is conjecture, an editorial. Both are editorials. An editorial is not an RS. Additionally, the previously posted sources consisted of an editorial, a study that had an abstract describing tension, but not making a conclusion RE misogyny prevalence, and another study regarding the different gaming style of women. - Skrelk (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So per the usual gater logic, you're going to reject anything that doesn't fit your personal qualifications of independency or neutrality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not my 'person qualification'. It's the basic standard that an editorial is not evidence, or a reliable source. Skrelk (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok then Skrelk. Feel free to peruse the linked sources in the section above, as they cover basically the same area. Also it's comical to say that because some fringe theory implicates ALL of games journalism that wikipedia should kowtow to that interpretation as though it were based in reality. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also I'll be patiently waiting for a reliable source from outside the games industry which describes game culture as not having a problem with ingrained sexism. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I did peruse the linked sources, and as I said they consist of editorials and studies that do not support the claim of ingrained sexism, and are only tangentially related. And, per common sense, WP:BURDEN, the consist of burden of proof, etc, we don't need a NPOV RS refuting the claim that game culture doesn't have a problem, we need one that is neutral, outside the gaming press, and is not an editorial that says it is. I'm surprised that an admin such as you doesn't understand WP:BURDEN - Skrelk (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If the game media itself explains it knows there's a problem within game media, that's a perfectly acceptable source for that point. Self-identification is rarely a problematic statement. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the game media yes, but the game media articles/editorials cannot be used to say there is a problem in gaming culture, or in the community as whole outside the media. - Skrelk (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not really, this qualification of sourcing is a non-problem for Wikipedia. The gaming media is part of the gaming industry, so they are qualified to make self-assessments about the state of it. There's no requirement that the assessment of this nature has to be completely neutral of the industry. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They're not making a self-assessment about the gaming industry, they're making an assessment of gaming culture, and of gamers generally. If they were saying game developers and plots are misogynistic, that would be completely different. But that isn't at issue here, they're saying that gaming culture and gamers are misogynistic Skrelk (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Which they have. I've provided a range of sources that show the industry knowing the games they develop have presented misogynic ideas, and are clearly aware the problem is not limited to the gamers only. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And those sources can be used to show that misogyny has been a significant issue, perhaps even ingrained, in the game development industry. Skrelk (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's why the lead says "It concerns ingrained [23] issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game industry". So there zero issue here. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And so, having accepted the ingrained sexism in game development, it's somehow impossible to accept multiple sources noting a very similar phenomenon among community members as well? Also, I understand "burden", but we're talking about an issue which grew out of online community protests over a woman making a game (which were pretty similar to protests over another woman criticising the industry for the sexism you accept is ingrained and widespread among developers). There are facts on the ground. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate did not start over 'a woman making a game'. It began when, almost simultaneously, conflicts of interest were discovered in gaming journalism, and took off when many journalism outlets published articles attacking gamers, and gaming culture, hence the term 'gamergate'. The sources do not note than the phenomenon, they do not prove it, they merely assert it. I also don't quite agree with the use of the term ingrained(widespread, yes, problematic, yes, ingrained, present to such an extent that you can't play a game without seeing it, no), and questions it's relevance, given that gamergate arose over conflicts between journalists, and gamers, not journalists and the industry. - Skrelk (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say, that's what the popular proGG opinion wants to try to change but that's not apparently happening. All reliable sources all point to the harassment that Quinn got. You cannot argue a point different from that without invalidating all the sources that state this point. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the evidence shows there wasn't a conflict of interest. And the choice to protest an alleged conflict of interest by launching a misogynistic and slut-shaming harassment campaign against a heretofore-obscure female indie developer has not gone unremarked in reliable sources. Third-grade-level sex jokes may have made for five minutes of lulz on a chan board, but they don't do much to rebut the opposition's contention that the movement is motivated by sexism. Choices have consequences, and in an identity movement, anything done under your flag is going to be attributed to your flag. It's the unavoidable consequence of launching a movement based almost entirely on anonymous social media postings. There's no real way to control the message, to have accountability for one's actions or to steer the narrative back in a constructive direction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note sorry, after reading above I'm not sure what there is consensus to change, if anything at this time! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

New summary source

From The Verge (which I know some are going to called bias). I don't see anything immediately new that needs to be added (the only thing that caught my eye being the DARPA/DiGRA aspect but that's a lot of buzz without any apparent impact yet, so I would keep it out for now). --MASEM (t) 17:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cite errors

This was locked while it had two big red cite errors in the References section. The errors are keeping it in two error tracking categories. I wonder if it would possible for someone with superhuman powers to fix the errors, so that this doesn't stay in the tracking categories for the next year or so. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed (commented out the Escapist one and fixing the cite name one as needed). Nothing else touched. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: change "Twitter hashtag" in lead to "hashtag" due to widespread use of hashtags outside of twitter

Request in title, this shouldn't be controversial. - Skrelk (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Added template to plop this into a tracking category. Protonk (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. If anyone has a problem with this, it can be reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely sure of the rationale here - is there any indication that #GamerGate has been used as a hashtag outside of Twitter? Artw (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the rationale is the term "hashtag" is more general than twitter, or at least shouldn't just be referred to in text as a "twitter hashtag". My read is the change is purely stylistic. I would've done it but I don't like editing protected pages while I'm involved in a talk page discussion. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Pipelink "Steam" to "Steam (software)"

In the section Allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment, first paragraph, first sentence: Could someone add a pipelink from "Steam" to Steam (software)? Trivialist (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)