Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

In a nutshell

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

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

The #GamerGate Points include:

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

The opponents of #gamergate points include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organization Suggestion

First off I love what's happened with the article. It feels it's a lot more neutral, there's little to no 'biased' language now, however, I still think we're not addressing a general structure:

When you come to a GamerGate thread, you want to know WHAT is it. WHY it's happening. HOW it's impacted the industry.

Currently it's: WHAT is it (overview) HOW it's impacted the industry. HOW it's happening.

So here are my suggestions.

We need structure, so here's the format I'm suggesting, as for every argument it should go:

Extended content

////// Background Argument Counter-Argument Results ////// Background (mostly okay right now) GamerGate Campaign (cover origins in reddit, 4chan, etc. and how the Twitter hashtag exploded and what their concerns are, this can HAVE allegations against Quinn contained in it, but only the allegations for now, we NEED to set the stage of the argument FIRST) Major Events: (each is a sub-category) -The Zoe Post (WHAT it is) -Fine Young Capitalists (WHAT it is) -"Gamers are Dead" Posts (WHAT it is) -JournoListPro's (WHAT it is) We need to keep these fact based and neutral. Do not assume guilt. Backlash (HOW it's impacted the industry): (each is a sub-category) -Misogyny Allegations (cover misogyny allegations) -Doxxing and Threats (cover Saarkesian and Quinn, as well as threats towards Pro-GG supporters, Jayd3fox, 10 year old boy getting doxxed, bank accounts leaked, etc.) -Developer Reactions (The Escapist 'anonymous game developer' post shows all three sides (against, pro, neutral), Stardock, Anthony Burch) -Public Figure Reactions (m00t, Christine Sommers, etc.) ////////

Essentially this would now read more like what an argument typically is. Imagine a court case: You have the background of the case, the prosecution goes first, defense goes second, than closing arguments. They DON'T interrupt eachother, they DON'T get personal until the last argument. Look at any other article that has an argument, and it will have that exact format, this avoids misrepresentation of concerns on EITHER side. EvilConker (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"I'm sawry u dont have sourcez 4 that?? u doo?? they r unreliable that means its false."Derpen (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What? Let's keep this mature. Please. EvilConker (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We can't go that way because we don't reliable sourcing to go in the specifics of everything that happened. We're covering this from the issues level, not the event. Additionally, most of the points made don't have point/counterpoint type discussion that this order would try to point towards. It's because of the disjointed coverage that we have to approach it like this without introducing new bias. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well then those sections will be short. Here's the thing that's rolling in my head, it's the 'let me tell you what you want' concept. See, you wouldn't use a Republican website to explain what a Democractic movement was thinking, and you wouldn't use Cops statements to explain Ferguson, or the Wall Street journal to describe Occupy Wall Street. So I wouldn't trust Anti-GG to explain why GG people are angry. You offer the accusation, and how those accused have responded. EvilConker (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But we can't use the majority of sources that are claimed to be the proGG side because they fail reliability. We can't increase the proGG side, all we can do is temper the other side within reason to try to establish what the issues are but without trying to say who is right or wrong. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

All this pro-GG stuff you want to add does not exist in reliable sources. This just comes back to one of the arguments made by Erik Kain in Forbes that the pro-GG crowd wants unbiased coverage, but they praise bias in their favor. It explains why this raticle has been beseiged by editors on both sides. Also Suzanne Somers was Chrissy on Three's Company. Christina Hoff Sommers is an "equality feminist" author who is against "gender feminists" (in her words).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh* here we go again: Al Jazeera Tech Crunch (all that's been said has been backed up with evidence)

I mean, what you're not understanding here is DID they say this? Yes they did. That's their argument.EvilConker (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody cares what the "pro-GG" crowd (which, to be honest, if one is saying they are "po-GG" then they are in effect "pro-sexual harassment") thinks or feels in this situation; their point-of-view is decidedly fringe. The sooner you and a few others get over the misunderstanding that "pro-GG" is an equal-weight opinion alongside what this is actually about, the better. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so you admit your bias towards the issue at hand. Derpen (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly minority, but not fringe, as I've shown. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

While I would not dismiss it as fast as others are arguing, a viewpoint of a random group of people that have otherwise not come together to state in a unified manner of what they would like to see changed, requiring people to guess from the numerous social media posts, makes the proGG side a fringe view because there is no focus point of it. We have some ideas (eg the issues with collusion between press and devs) but we cannot treat the proGG like that is an opponent in the debate because there is no common voice here. That's half the problem with finding any proGG side coverage to offer. (The other half is the fact that because of the actions of the few, that side is considered tainted by the press). And as Wikipedia, we can only strive to give as much balance that sources let us, we cannot change that story around. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree, that is one of the problems when trying to source anything pro-GG. Another being that it is quite doubtful that the "reliable sources" will break from their biased stance and write an article that is pro-GG. Derpen (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The primary "accusation" here represented in mainstream reliable sources is that a significant number of people initiated a vicious, prolonged and newsworthy campaign of harassment against Zoe Quinn over false allegations of a conflict of interest, which is conflated with heavy doses of misogyny, slut-shaming, third-grade-level sex jokes, and a general tendency toward Internet trolling — particularly of women. The people who have been accused of that ("GamerGaters") have responded that they're actually concerned about journalism ethics. We accurately describe those positions, and the responses of mainstream reliable sources to each position. Not sure what more you want us to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What if I told you- and hold your breath here- that these "reliable sources" can be biased?Derpen (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So, you're praising these two singular pro-GG pieces that go "it's not about harassment it's about conflicts of interest and being censored by the man" because it gives a one-sided and biased account on your behalf rather than a general look into everything. Thanks for proving my point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean just like how many of the sources in this article are one-sided? Better check that hypocrisy.Derpen (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i think that people looking at those sources and our policies WP:GEVAL would get a WP:CLUESTICK, but the 5 pages of archives have proved me wrong. Maybe you can prove me right. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for proving my point once again. "If it's not biased in our [gaters'] favor it must be biased and we should fight for it to never be used against us again". You want articles without bias that just happen to be heavily biased against journalists and Quinn.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

which, to be honest, if one is saying they are "po-GG" then they are in effect "pro-sexual harassment"

Women have used the #GamerGate tag, I don't think they'd agree with Tarc.--ArmyLine (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the bulk of the gamergate movement has been steeped in the harassment of a single woman because her ex-boyfriend decided to drag her in the mud when she had a moment of success in her job. While there may be adequate concerns of journalistic integrity found within the movement, as the article here states it has been soured by the large amount of people attacking Zoe Quinn because she is a woman rather than because they dislike her game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While there may be adequate concerns of journalistic integrity found within the movement

Perhaps we should include them, then.--ArmyLine (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You can clearly read what I've written so you can read the article to see that it discusses gamers' concerns on journalistic integrity.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Cited sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me predict what will happen:

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

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

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

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

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

Another prediction of what they will say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Masem, the sourcing is pretty small, but if there is a few mentions on reliable sources, and the mailing list "proves" several complaints from the GG side, it should be included in a sentece or two, something to this effect by Diego https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)

Re: Second paragraph first sentence (The controversy came to wider attention...)

Excerpt in question:

The controversy came to wider attention due to harassment that indie game developer Zoe Quinn received after an ex-boyfriend posted allegations on his blog in August 2014 about her personal life that led others to accuse her of professional impropriety to obtain positive media coverage for her game. Those subsequent allegations were shown to be false[a][...]

[a]Time: "Despite the fact the journalist in question did not ‘review’ the game and wasn't found to have allocated it any particular special treatment...";[8] Washington Post: "The site investigated the alleged ethics breach and concluded there had been no wrongdoing.";[9] Forbes: "....the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire..."[2]

I notice that [8] is a direct quotation from Leigh Alexander. Doesn't seem appropriate to use a subject of the article as a source without stating the potential COI. The other two don't seem to state "no credibility" without going into any evidence or details. Something doesn't seem right here. --ArmyLine (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander is not a subject of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Later, beginning on August 28, 2014, a number of writers published opinion columns which argued for the "end of the gamer identity", citing the growing diversity of gaming and the mainstreaming of the medium, while those associated with GamerGate were stated to be a reactionary force against these changes.[33][43][44][45] As a result, there were concerns that the divide between gaming journalists and the gaming community was deepening, with games writers seen as attacking their own audience.[14][46]

Leigh Alexander was one of the columnists involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmyLine (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Writing an article that is subsequently cited by this article does not in any sense create a "conflict of interest." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

These straw man ‘game journalism ethics’ conversations people have been having are largely the domain of a prior age, when all we did was negotiate ad deals and review scores and scraped to be called ‘reporters’, because we had the same powerlessness complex as our audience had. Now part of a writer’s job in a creative, human medium is to help curate a creative community and an inclusive culture -- and a lack of commitment to that just looks out-of-step, like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘ethics’ as the latest flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion.

Edit: Oh, and she works for Gamasutra, one of the journalist sites which have been singled out for supposed unethical behavior by GamerGate supporters. So there's the COI.

--ArmyLine (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGaters have a habit of calling any source that they don't like 'biased' or claiming they have a 'COI.' It's a convenient way to 'win' internet arguments (at least in your own mind) but it's not going to fly here. The information being cited isn't a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact: there was no impropriety. There couldn't have been, because Grayson never reviewed the game. Alexander's article is published in Time, and is a reliable source for factual information like this - that authority is derived from Time, not from Alexander herself, so your opinions on her don't really matter here. We're not going to throw out Alexander just because the gaters don't like her. We simply can't allow GamerGate to render every source they don't like unusable by leveling accusations at the authors. If we did, we would very quickly end up with a glowing account of GamerGate's noble aims to stamp out corruption and evil SJWs in gaming journalism, rather than an unbiased, well sourced article about what members of the movement are actually saying and doing. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Right back at you. Where did I make a personal attack, please? -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to me to be more interested in attacking one side of the controversy than finding diverse sources and writers. Additionally, I don't think attacking those "gaters" is relevant to the points I raised. I'm trying to be patient and remain on topic so that this discussion can come to a productive conclusion, rather than being closed like the one below. Please return the favor.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll counter your accusation with one of my own: you seem to be more interested in attacking me than in addressing my justifications for my position on why Alexander is a reliable source for this article. I'm not 'attacking one side,' I'm saying that we can't use accusations leveled against a writer by GamerGaters to decide whether or not that writer's work is usable as a reliable source in this article. Essentially what I'm saying is that GamerGaters have a COI that leads them to attempt to discredit any media outlet that says things they don't like. We can not allow the movement to dictate what sources can and can not be used in its article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an accusation by GamerGaters, it's the fact that she works for a company which is the subject of this article. I'd feel more comfortable if this was stated when she was used as a source. We can agree to disagree on this account, and as we both know who controls the article as it stands right now I will defer to their judgement.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't conduct our own research into writers' personal and professional lives and to determine for ourselves who is reliable and who isn't: we trust the reliable sources they write for to do that themselves. Time, an established and respected publication, published her 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. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that JournoList has its own Wikipedia page, but it seems like any mention of the GameJournoPros list is labelled "fringe conspiracy theory". I'm curious what the differences are between the two situations that make one an acceptable article and another unacceptable to even discuss.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources on that page. Can you provide that level of sourcing for this 'controversy?' And what does this have to do with your question about Leigh Alexander as a source for the fact that the accusations that Zoe Quinn received favorable reviews for her game from Nathan Grayson were false? -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. That doesn't mean that this is a "fringe conspiracy theory", though. It seems like various sources were reporting on JournoList as far back as 2007, though it was not until 2010 that more mainstream sources picked up on it. Branding something as off-topic before enough time has passed for the fallout to be evaluated and a thorough investigation to occur seems premature and, well, biased.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You have it precisely backward. We do not include something until sufficient reliable sources have published that something. If and when reliable sources consider the e-mail list thing to be any sort of significant story, we can examine its inclusion. Literally no other mainstream sources have reported anything about it. From that, we can either presume that there's a vast journalistic conspiracy involving almost every single journalist on the planet, or we can presume that other journalists have looked at the e-mails and concluded that there is nothing newsworthy about journalists arguing with each other on an Internet mailing list, and the plain text of the e-mails makes it abundantly clear that the only thing people agreed on was that "harassment is bad and we should not support it." Which is hardly a shocking or corrupt conclusion; indeed, it is the only conclusion that decent human beings can arrive at. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Literally no other mainstream sources have reported anything about it. From that, we can either presume that there's a vast journalistic conspiracy involving almost every single journalist on the planet, or we can presume that other journalists have looked at the e-mails and concluded that there is nothing newsworthy about journalists arguing with each other on an Internet mailing list, and the plain text of the e-mails makes it abundantly clear that the only thing people agreed on was that "harassment is bad and we should not support it."

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.

I want to be clear that none of this affected Ars' other coverage. I don't have any kind of final say about what gets published on Ars Technica, and the two posts that Ars did on the "GamerGate" controversy were separately suggested by Culture Editor Casey Johnston, who had tracked the issue on her own and worked directly on her pieces with senior Ars editors. As noted above, the decision to review Depression Quest had already been made before any controversy had arisen. (Due to my lapse in judgment on this matter, going forward I will refrain from writing about or providing editorial support to any further pieces published on "GamerGate," Quinn, or Depression Quest at Ars.)

This is from Ars Technica. Is this article mainstream enough for inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmyLine (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

to include what? "The creator of a journalist discussion group apologized for suggesting that journalists should stand up against harassment" or "Gamergaters conspiracy theories of journalistic collusion were proven to be yet another point where they were wrong" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

to include what? "The creator of a journalist discussion group apologized for suggesting that journalists should stand up against harassment" or "Gamergaters conspiracy theories of journalistic collusion were proven to be yet another point where they were wrong" ?

I couldn't find that in the article, I was thinking of something related to the recusal.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that Time opted to publish a story that they knew was by a person that could be biased in the event, that implies that the story should be taken as a reliable source due to the Time pedigree and not Alexanders, particularly on the factual, unopinionated statement that the specific allegation that Quinn used Grayson to get positive reviews at Kotaku. If it was anything that required more opinion, like listing out the proGG arguments, I'd be caution here, but not for a statement of fact. (And we are in no place to even question the final word from Kotaku, that this didn't happen). --MASEM (t) 05:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Full protection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Argument Against Perceived Undue Weighting of Erik Kain's Opinions

This has come up in the section on cited sources, but I thought I may as well start this in a new section because that one's become huge, hard to read and has changed topic multiple times now. Concerns have been raised about the disproportionate amount of times Kain has been cited in the article, with some thinking it's due to Kain's sympathies to the GamerGate movement, and is being used to give undue weight to pro-GG opinions But looking at it, a lot of the citings of Kain seem unnecessary and replacable with citations from other sources. Also it is incorrect that Kain is the most referenced writer in this article. Kain is referenced 16 times, while Todd VanDerWerff is referenced 17 times. Sarah Kaplan comes in 3rd place with 15 citations. I do not believe that any of these authors are being overly referenced due to give an opinion undue weight. It is instead more likely that they've accumulated all these citations because nobody wants to trudge through a list of 60 sources every time they make an edit and therefore gravitate towards the most popular articles. Below is a breakdown of the these 16 citations, starting with those from his September 4th article. If you don't feel like reading a wall of bulletpoints please skip to my conclusion and summary.

• Citations a, and c both have at least 4 other sources being cited, is citing Kain on top of this strictly necessary?
• Citations b and d are used to argue an anti-GamerGate point (accusations against Quinn have no substance according to many commentators), showing over citation of Kain is not necessarily a symptom of undue weight to pro-GG opinions. Like the preceding cases Kain is being cited as part of a larger consensus amongst the cited sources. Other sources that could have been used to cite this include source 25 and 26, both of which have only been cited once in this article.
• Citation e is once again Kain alongside another source.
• citation f [Streisand effect] can have the Bokhari article used as an additional source, or a replacement source to unclutter all the Kain referencing.
• g is Kain's opinion can only be cited from Kain
• h [changes to Polygon and Kotaku policies] seems to be only obtainable from Kain's article, but there's a good 60 sources being used on this article so I might have missed an alternative.
• For citation i Kain is the only source other than the TFYC interview (which i think can't be used in this situation under WP:SPS) that explicitly mentions what TFYC were accused of by Quinn.
• Citation j is alongside a citation of the TFYC interview. Is it necessary for notability reasons or something?
• Citation k is one where Kain is the only option for citation I think.
• Citations l and m could instead be referenced from the Ringo Article
• n is Kain's opinion
• For citation o Kain is cited alongside another source
• His Gamers are Dead article [source number 46] is cited alongside another third party source, but is probably necessary in this case to show the attacking your own audience perception is not just coming from one source and being given undue weight.

In summary of the 16 times Kain is cited:

• 7 of these are alongside other third party sources as part of a consensus [showing the Kain's articles have for the most part been used to represent non-fringe views]
• 7 do not necessarily require Kain to be cited
• 2 are used to source Kain's own opinions outside of a consensus

For this reason I conclude that Kain's opinions have not been given undue weight in this article, although the citations should perhaps be rejigged so it doesn't look as if they have been. I suspect the same conclusion would be reached if I were to look at the VanderWerff and Kaplan sources too, which could also perhaps benefit from some source rejigging so things don't look more dodgy than they actually are.

On a side note: Kevin Rawlinson's BBC article comes up on the list of references twice. Can an admin fix this? Bosstopher (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree I think we need to back off a bit on Kain, but I do believe most of the points where he is sourced are duplicate or can be replaced. From prior discussion on WT:VG, Forbes now uses a "contributor" model for articles and while there is some editorial control, not every Forbes article is "blessed". We have decided that Kain and Tassi from Forbes are recognized "experts" for Forbes so they are generally okay, but keep in mind that they are only contributors here, and it's not like Forbes' hired editors are writing this. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me restart that you're trying to defend Kain, but I think there is a very valid point we simply have too much of that article sources for being on the cusp of really good reliability. Where it duplicates anything from more reliable sources we should remove it/replace it, but certainly eliminating it is not proper. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said I'm trying to delete Kain everyone has misunderstood me here completely. It doesnt help that Logan has gone ahead and spread his misrepresentation of what I'm saying all over twitter [3] and reddit [4], instead of asking for a clarification. I'm saying exactly the same thing you're saying Masem. My argument is that undue weight has no been given to Kain's opinions, as Baranof and Tara had claimed in the section on cited sources, and that their claims that Kain is being overcited to overweight pro-Gamergate opinions is false. Bosstopher (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So basically it's time we showed Loganmac the door.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The 'claim' that Kain is being overcited is not 'false.' You may not agree that it's a problem, but he is still cited more frequently than any other publication, let alone any other author. That would be excessive even if he weren't an opinion columnist. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You have very clearly not read what I have written, or else you would know that he is not cited more than any any other author, he is the second most cited. Please read what I have written [at least the summarising parts and the first paragraph]. I may not be the most eloquent of writers but some of this stuff is clearly stated and should be obvious from even a brief skim. Bosstopher (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not read your extremely long post in its entirety and missed Vanderwerff. But another writer being heavily cited as well doesn't disprove that we're making too heavy use of this opinion columnist. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, I'll give a summarised version:

* Heavy use of Kain is not due to some sort of Pro-GG Agenda but instead laziness, as he's one of those sources everyone editing the article has read, and there's 60 other sources to trudge through.

* Kain has not been used to represent fringe views and 7 citations of him (out of 16) are alongside another source as part of a consensus.

* 7 of the Kain citations are unnecessary and can be removed/replaced with reference to other sources, without causing any change to the content of the article.

* In the actual writing of the article Kain's views have not been given disproportionate representation. It merely looks that way when you look at the reference list. The same likely applies for Kaplan and Vanderwerff. Bosstopher (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're blowing this out of proportion somewhat. When a source, especially one whose publisher prints an 'opinions are his own' disclaimer alongside his articles, is being overrused (and this one absolutely is, whatever you think the reason may be) we should be looking at why we need to use them so much before we continue to repeat information we can only cite to that one source. That's all. I haven't advocated excising him from the article, I've only said that when he's the primary (and very tenuous) justification for the inclusion of information that's problematic from a BLP perspective we ought to tread carefully. Nothing about that is 'false.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me again. Given that you're not the only one who's done this I can only assume I'm not being coherent enough and would like to apologise to everyone for this. I will try to clearly state my opinion now. I am not claiming that you are advocating excising from the article, I know very well that this is not the case. You said in your post above "we should be looking at why we need to use them so much before we continue to repeat information we can only cite to that one source." This is exactly what I have done above. I have looked at every single time Kain has been cited in this article, and shown that around half the time he's been cited, it has been alongside another source as part of a consensus. So this is not a case of Kain being cited as a frequent lone voice of dissent. I have identified that in 7 out of the 16 cases where Kain is cited, another source can easily be found to use in lieu of Kain. So 'false' may be a be an overstatement, but only a slight one. Bosstopher (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not necessarily a problem, but I would still recommend that where Kain's article is used next to another and can clearly be removed, we should, while where he is the unique voice that we absolutely cannot get from others, we keep. It would be different if this was an article from the NYTimes summarizing the issue to the same level of detail, as we'd want to load up sourcing to that. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that your accounting has eliminated potential concerns: you're still ignoring that, for one reason or another, we're using an opinion columnist more often than nearly every news source cited in the article. The 'misunderstanding,' though, seems to be mainly due to you blowing this issue out of proportion. You created a lengthy examination of Kain's usage in this article based on a comment that he was being used too heavily considering that he was an opinion columnist. You've made this into a Great Big Deal and that's why it's being spread around the twitter outrage machine right now. And to be perfectly clear, I did not say that he had 'pro-gamergate leanings' and neither, so far as I can tell, did anyone else. I said he was more sympathetic to the gamergaters than most writers. That is not the same thing. Considering that you're so concerned about other people misrepresenting your statements, you ought be more attentive to how you are representing those of others. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel you have been misrepresented, I shall amend by original post though to more accurately represent your views.I'm sorry for making a great big post, I was just trying to be thorough. If the article hadn't been protected I would have simply replaced a good 7 of the citations of Kain with other sources thereby proving that other sources are available for what he's been cited for, and that the reason he had been cited so much was mere coincidence rather than the pushing of an agenda. In my great big wall of text post I gave viable alternative sources to be used as the citation instead of Kain. I do not see how I have not addressed your concerns. Bosstopher (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GameJournosPro

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

---

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) 16:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

References

{{archive-top|Fixed. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)}}

Why is this talk page showing references at the bottom? What formatting got screwed up?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• All talkpages (and indeed every page) do this now if someone enters a correctly formatted reference. It was yet another "improvement" by the Wikimedia Foundation's technical side that has done nothing except irritate and waste people's time. I'll get rid of them, give me a sec. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah but I didn't see any references on the page when I attempted to edit them out myself. Ctrl+F "<ref" didn't find anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  Look at Masem's edit. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  I see that now but for some reason it wasn't showing up earlier.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}

Gamergate poll

"collapsing per WP:FORUM"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Decide among yourselves whether to include this. gamepolitics.com, a website of the non-profit Entertainment Consumers Association, did a poll which asked what Gamergate is about. Results here: http://gamepolitics.com/2014/09/29/poll-results-what-gamergate#.VCnVZK21nxs Willhesucceed (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I think "does Wikipefia consider a poll a RS?" Is a question you really should be able to answer for yourself by now, TBH. Artw (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I didn't mean that it should be used as an RS on the issues, only that maybe it's noteworthy what people who participated in the poll think the issue's about. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC) It's a self-selected Internet survey on a gaming-oriented website, not a random-sampling scientific poll of the general public. Thus, it lacks statistical validity or meaning for any conclusion beyond "more readers of this specific website cared to cast a vote for one side than the other." An actual scientific poll on the issue might merit inclusion, but this is not that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Want to add an additional source to first paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

Can a watered down version be derived from the Bokhari article [5]? Also, if an article has a youtube video by another party embedded into it, does that video count as part of the article? Bosstopher (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor fixing needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Liana K article on GamerGate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vivian James drawing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Useful source

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

Brief article from CBC on the issues (not seeing anything immediately useful/new) [6] --MASEM (t) 18:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Anybody opposed to keeping track of GG using this?

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

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

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

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