Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Relevance to subject of the article?

in Gamergate_controversy#Targeting_advertisers the final sentence of the second paragraph (particularly the second half) have to do with the subject of this article? "The Columbia Journalism Review commented that, while the tweets were likely jokes, "it's no secret that Gawker is the bully of the [I]nternet."" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I was never a fan of it's inclusion, just seems to be there to take a swipe at Gawker. Doesn't really add to the readers understanding of the controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a better pull quote might be "While the issue goes into convoluted gamergate territory, it didn’t make Gawker...look good." The source and information is relevant, but I don't love the quote we have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that quote is better if we need one. Gives more context, it didn't make Gawker look very good, and it was a bit convoluted, hence immediate reactions from companies like Adobe. — Strongjam (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favour of just removing it altogether- doesn't seem like it adds much information to the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Gawker is notable for being the target of an email campaign to their advertisers. But their role in the actual controversy, beyond being a target, is minimal. They have posted articles critical of GamerGate but only one of their blogs, Kotaku, covers videogame journalism and their entire corporate collective of blogs was targeted. Their actual articles on the subject of GamerGate are very similar to ones published by other news and gaming blogs. The fact they were singled out in such a striking way seemed puzzling to me at the time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They were singled out not because they ran a "Gamers are Over" article, but because Nathan Grayson works there. For example, the KotakuInAction subreddit pre-dates the articles, it was created 06:13:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC). — Strongjam (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a key aspect of the controversy and about what Gamergate is about, so to remove it would really be a negative to the article. We really need more coverage of situations such as this, not less. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your rational for why someone stating that Gawker has a reputation for not playing nice with other internet media has ANY relation to gamergate. With sources please. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

While not with regards to other media, Auerbach has argued that Gawker's role in the whole controversy is hypocritical: "Now Gawker is stirring up a new bogeyman for clicks, not social justice, defending women only after its revenue streams are threatened—a ploy some advertisers evidently see through. Gawker, if you want to claim any moral authority on Gamergate, I would first issue a public apology to all you have wronged"[1] But I'd suggest we instead replace it with Thargor's alternate proposal of "it didn’t make Gawker...look good," and leave the bully quote which doesnt necessarily work.Bosstopher (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

RedPen, Kotaku, part of the Gawker network, is central to the controversies surrounding Gamergate, both in the conspiratorial and ethical points. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly not to the the sources covering the controversy. None except this piece have had any mention of Gawker's prickly relationship with other media. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources covering the movement have certainly highlighted Gawker's role numerous times, and this source pretty clearly links the movement to it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD would you have any issue with Thargor's alternative proposed quote which doesnt mention Gawker's relationship with other media, just that the tweets made them look bad?Bosstopher (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Quoting Aurbach to state that he thinks Gawker played the GG story entice readers? How relevant is that and where would it be placed? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No. This quote from CJR: "While the issue goes into convoluted gamergate territory, it didn’t make Gawker...look good."Bosstopher (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, Gawker's only relevance is the fact that they were a GamerGate target. Their coverage of GamerGate is similar to that of other blogs. If you are actually talking about Kotaku, than say Kotaku. But since this is all about "ethics in gaming journalism", I think what is most relevant is what gaming blogs had to say, not Gawker. The sole reason that Gawker was a target is because of few flippant Tweets that "outraged" gamers and they struck back. But except for Kotaku, Gawker has nothing to do with videogame journalism. I don't think their coverage of GamerGate was more notable than that written by authors who actually are knowledgeable about the gaming industry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As Kotaku is run/owned by Gawker, it's very relevant. If you're only working under the assumption that "gamergate = harassment," I understand what you're saying, but if we're working under what's actually happening in the real world, Gawker's relevance is apparent, and the source makes that expressly clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

those who may be "only working under the assumption that "gamergate = harassment," are, well following the reliable sources, like we are supposed to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're following reliable sources, we include the Gawker information. Like we're supposed to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If we are following the sources, ALL of them focus on harassment. A small handful mention Gawker. Of those small handful that mention Gawker, most dismiss the GG claims about it. So, while Gawker may loom large in the obsessed minds of GG, in the real world - as per coverage of the reliable sources WP:UNDUE, Gawker has squat all to do with the gamergate controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't get off track, this is about this specific section of the article, and about Gawker, the movement and advertisers. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You were the one who is attempting to suggest that "gamergate = harassment," is not the foundation of the reliable sources' coverage and that we need to enter some "real world" where Gawker plays some major role. THAT is off track. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggested nothing of the sort. Please stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamers are Over Paragraph

Just trimmed the Gamers are Over paragraph. Thought I'd explain my reasoning here.

• Dropped the quotes from one of the articles. I didn't think it really helped the reader.
• Moved up the Gamestar bit about it being viewed as a conspiracy. Seemed important to me. I've been told it's not an op-ed so I didn't attribute the opinion.
• Removed Kain, since the Slate article covered the same points I just went with that.
• Changed "attack" to "alienate" seemed closer to the article where he says "There is no faster way to alienate my audience—that is, the people who pay my bills. And yet, this is exactly what writers at not one but half a dozen online gaming publications did to their audiences last week."

If anyone wants me to revert please ping me. — Strongjam (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Declaring that the old image of "gamer" is over and has been replaced by a diversity in gamers today seems more like alienating some readers than attacking them to me. The fact that this change in demographics about who plays games is backed up by trade organization studies makes it appear more like it is recognizing a reality than attacking individuals (who, ironically, then supported this view by the #NotYourShield campaign). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: The Gamestar piece is an op-ed - very much so. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @ForbiddenRocky:, I'll attribute it just to be safe. — Strongjam (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I would revert this sentence, and/or I would get one of the Wiki translation people to translate the article for you. The sense of the paragraph you're trying to summarize is that the Op-ed doesn't think there's a conspiracy, rather an overreaction. Your summary complete changes what Graf is trying to say. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not use a machine translation on this, the machine translations are confusing. Relevant passage: Angesichts der gleichzeitigen Berichte wittern viele #GamerGate-Anhänger eine Verschwörung, sie klagen, man wolle ihre Pressekritik mit einer Schmutzkampagne ersticken. Dieser Eindruck ist nachvollziehbar, an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht, sondern einfach an eine komplette Überreaktion. Eine Überreaktion auf die Überreaktion vieler Spieler auf die Überreaktion eines betrogenen Ex-Freundes. Die Spielebranche als Pulverfass. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Or find some other source for the point you're trying to make. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I'm misusing the source here, he clearly says that GG supporters saw it as evidence of a conspiracy. We can add something more if you want though, maybe something like "Michael Graf of GameStar wrote that Gamergate supporters saw the publication of these op-eds as evidence of a conspiracy to stifle their criticism, he disagreed with that conclusion, seeing them instead as an overreaction." — Strongjam (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Only so he can say the doesn't believe that, and that the whole thing is an overreaction. You're changing the point he's making in his own OP-ED. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I can't read it, so I'll just let someone who can figure out how best to use it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I doubt the value of adding this source, this is the second time that in an effort to reduce the verboseness that Graf's opinion has been mostly reversed in meaning. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I agree with your changes. For the most part, I see it as an attempt to make the point of that paragraph brief and more adequate. Meşteşugarul - U 12:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have my concerns. The consistent narrative throughout this whole long term dispute at this article is about the majority/preponderance of sources being about a certain topic. Then, time and time again, we seem to be actively diminishing or removing sources and claims that run counter to the "established" narrative, thus "proving" the narrative true as a result because, hey, look at the articles we use in the article. When it comes to this specific article, is the reason we're removing it due to the language it's in? If so, that's an exceptionally poor reason to do so, as we appear to have a credible translation, or at least a credible way to summarize. Is it something else? Long and short, I'm concerned about the removal of otherwise good sources that may help flesh out what this topic is actually about right now, and this seems like a prime candidate for assisting in improving this article to better reflect what's going on. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because I can't read it and can't credible summarize it, what I thought was a fair summation was challenged. I think it can be used, just not by me. Perhaps we can go back to the previous usage "Gamergate supporters saw the publication of these op-eds as evidence of a conspiracy to stifle their criticism of the press with a smear campaign; Michael Graf of GameStar described this impression as understandable, but not credible, and he said that the op-eds were probably just journalists overreacting to the initial events, which he described as many gamers overreacting in turn to the overreaction of an ex-boyfriend." @ForbiddenRocky:? — Strongjam (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Graf's main point here is that he thinks it's an overreaction of some sort; which he states as a counter to the idea that there was a smear campaign. When you just include the first sentence summary, you lose the sense of what Graf is saying. But if you include just his main point, it makes no sense without the thing he's countering. So if you include the longer passage, you get what looks like UNDUE. This is not easy to use. There must be some other source that includes the idea in Strongjam's attempted summary. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We do have this "They also point to a series of editorials by different writers that claimed “gamers are over,” starting with an article by freelance writer Leigh Alexander for Gamasutra. GamerGaters claim this is more proof of the conspiracy, and that they were trying to shout down their audience. Of course, this is more baloney." — Wasilka, Jordan (November 13, 2014). "GamerGate—righteous riot or misogynist movement?". Westman Journal. Brandon, Manitoba.. Maybe we could combine the two into a couple of sentence? — Strongjam (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... That entire article is a longer version of Graf's paragraph. You have to include the claim and the counter to keep the intent of the intent of the author. And if you do that, it looks like another strawman by proxy kinda thing. Why have a counter to a claim that can't stand alone? You really need something that stands alone as a RS for the claim. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to claim that there was a conspiracy just that GG supporters saw a conspiracy. I think we should also include the commentary that this is viewed as not credible, or "baloney". It's an example of one of GG's conspiracy theories that we talk about but never detail in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the value, but per your and Thargor Orlando's thinking, include it. But have to keep the intent of the authors that they don't think the conspiracy is real. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's examine the quote: They also point to a series of editorials by different writers that claimed “gamers are over,” starting with an article by freelance writer Leigh Alexander for Gamasutra. GamerGaters claim this is more proof of the conspiracy, and that they were trying to shout down their audience. Of course, this is more baloney. It has 2 logical components: the first is a statement of fact to the best of the author's knowledge (as Strongjam touched on above): "here is what GG believes." The second is the author's opinion of that belief: "I think they're wrong." Note that critical distinction. We don't have two opinions: side X says "there is a conspiracy" and side Y says "there isn't -- we have a fact: "side X believes there's a conspiracy" and side Y is of the opinion "there isn't." Fact and opinion.

IMHO, the fundamental problem with the GG article and our use of sources is that we give fact and opinion equal weight. Opinions change, facts should not, which is why encyclopedias focus on fact.

A number of fresh eyes have noted we don't sufficiently explain what's motivated GG in this months-long campaign. Here we have a chance to, with a quote that goes to the heart of it, and we're debating whether to eliminate it entirely or water it down with opinion. As long as we continue to weight fact and opinion equally this article will be little more than a battle of opinion. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to include the opinion to make it clear that it's a WP:FRINGE theory. — Strongjam (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorta true. It's a fact that some people think their opinion about what GG is about is true. It's a fact that other people disagree with that opinion. The existence of a conspiracy is not fact. I'm not convinced putting this many opinions into the entry is right. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that second fact is one level removed. I've confused things with my fact vs opinion distinction. Let my try again:

The more subjective the claim the higher the standard we hold sources to; for example, wikipedia policy acknowledges a distinction between expert opinion and non-expert opinion and avoids claims of moral judgement. I'll assume we're agreed on this point, so lets examine the subjectivity of each of these claims:

1. GG believes this was a coordinated effort. How would a source determine this? They'd look at any number of sites where GGers congregate and read what they claim, easy to do, non-controversial, little subjectivity and the writer doesn't have to be an expert in any field or even familiar with the details of GG to simply read what's posted on reddit or 8chan.
2. It was not a coordinated effort. How would a source determine this? They should speak to the authors of each of the published articles and verify they had no discussions with authors of similar articles prior to publication. But perhaps the authors were directed by their editors-in-chief to write these articles, so while they were coordinated. the authors were completely unaware. To be certain then a source should speak to the EICs of these publications and verify their efforts were not coordinated. Are there other levels of hierarchy between EIC and author where and effort might have been coordinated? One would have to be familiar with the inner workings of each of these publications to say for certain, but if so, the source should also speak to each of them, at each publication. Only then could a source reliably claim the articles were not coordinated. The above requires significant effort, it relies on the truthfulness of authors, editors and potential in-betweens and it requires knowledge of the internal workings of each publication.

My previous point (hopefully now more clearly illustrated) is that a source claiming (2) should be held to a much higher standard than a source claiming (1); further, the article should avoid or give less weight to claims similar to (2) which necessitate either significant speculation, unless expressed by an expert in the field, or significant research, unless such effort is suggested. This is not new policy or a novel interpretation of existing policy -- it is the standard to which sources in every well-written article on wikipedia are held, except, inexplicably, where Gamergate is concerned. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Except point #2 has a lot of RS support. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"We parrot the majority view of RSs without regard for context, subjectivity or expertise" is not a policy I'm familiar with. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? You stipulated there should be reliable sources. And there are. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we're unbalanced right now, so a whole paragraph wouldn't really be undue in this case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well per Strongjam's comment, I'll go along with "we should also include the commentary that this is viewed as not credible". But can we not use the German source? I've already had two go arounds trying to explain what the translated passage was about. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it is most important to have an accurate translation for any source that is used or we could be misrepresenting the author's argument. This just echoes what you've been saying already but I think it's important...we can't play with the language so it says what anyone wants it to say. Unfortunately, my German is from graduate school and is pretty rusty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a list of translators for Wikipedia Wikipedia:Translators_available#German-to-English. The machine translation of that passage is terrible. And translating just one sentence from that paragraph removes a ton of context that changes the meaning. I figured people should get their own translations done, since I was arguing for mine. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Avono: Pinging Avono because he is a german speaker.Bosstopher (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Avono added this originally, FWIW. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Which would make this person's input all the more useful. Meşteşugarul - U 20:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest Wu addition

This was reverted, citing that it somehow puts blame on the studio. Apparently we're allowed to put blame on the organizers, but putting neutral language concerning the state of the disagreement is not. I honestly don't get this change at all. And to be clear, the idea that security isn't sufficient is not in the piece, and certainly is not supported by the source in any way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In writing about Giant Spacekat withdrawing from the Expo Hall of PAX East, I wrote 'and the lack of sufficient security.' as one of the reasons Wu cited for the decision. You rewrote this to 'and the inability of the studio to reach an agreeable security arrangement with PAX.' This wording is specifically placing blame on the studio- it being the studio's inability to reach an agreement in this particular phrasing. Our source doesn't phrase things this way. Wu is quoted in the article as saying "I called them on three occasions trying to talk to them about security concerns, and did not have my calls returned," and if I were attempting to slant things against the organizers my wording would have pointed at this lack of communication. Instead I used phrasing I believed to be frank and neutral- 'lack of sufficient security'. An alternate suggestion if you are unhappy with this is 'and concerns with the security at the event.' I'd like to request that other editors pitch in on what they believe the wording should be- I'd be happy to hear if my wording was agreeable, or if a happy compromise could be reached. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence the security was insufficient, nor was it actually claimed. You've introduced a falsehood into the article, and you should probably revert yourself for that reason alone, never mind that your concern with casting blame on the studio doesn't seem to apply to the organizers/venue/convention. By noting that an arrangement couldn't be reached (true and neutral, it casts no blame), it keeps it within the realm of fact. "Concerns with security" is better, but outright does what you're trying not to do with the studio, and outright casts blame by implying that, again, it's a problem with PAX. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking for 'evidence' one way or another would be original research, Thagor. Again: I believe my wording is fairly neutral, but am open to alternatives. To paraphrase what I've written: "Brianna Wu cited a lack of sufficient security as a reason to withdraw from PAX East's Expo Hall". This is supported very clearly by the article we have as a reliable source. What you read into my writing is, I believe, not what most would. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, as the article does not support that, nor does Wu, actually. You're also incorrect about it being "original research," as the claim that the security is not "sufficient" is whre the OR comes in. I don't need to read into anything, the text is fairly clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In very plain language, from the article, "In a public statement, Wu said that the decision to withdraw from the Expo Hall comes from concern that, due to the sheer volume of crowds at PAX East, "the safety of our team can not be guaranteed."". Wu also talks about her attempts to contact the organizers due to safety concerns. I do not believe she is concerned that there is too much security. Does the article use my exact wording? No. Does the article say the Wu was concerned about her team not being safe? Yes. Could this reasonably be phrased as 'the security was not sufficient'? Yes. We're on the same team here, Thagor. You don't have to argue with every decision I make- I've looked harder at my wording because of your concerns, and I cannot conceivably see how you can say the article does not support the phrasing I've used. Could we please agree on something? I'd really rather you not extend this simply solved discussion too far. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't consider your language reasonable here. This isn't about you, this is about the edit you made, and it's one that made the article worse and introduced a falsehood. DHeyward's change is acceptable to me, and if the words "the studio" were really the only problem, then hopefully this sorts it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the edit to the article, DHeyward. I truly hope that Thagor finds this sufficient- these back and forths drain me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, UseR:DHeyward's edit doesn't fix the problem. Agreement/disagreement implies two parties - If I ask who the other party is other than PAX, the way things are constructed, the answer is the studio. That still puts the blame on the studio. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's how agreements work. The source has a response to Wu that it is safe. I think it's less wordy to say an agrement wasn't reached without saying either are at fault. The other route is to have it as you described for Wu and add PAXs response about security. The reality is that Wu and/or LE hasn't been able to identify who is making the threats so she has no restraining order to exclude anyone. This is also Boston and security will include bomb sniffing dogs, metal detectors, bag restrictions, etc. They also aren't going to divulge all the security arrangements to exhibitors or the press. Wu doesn't articulate what action PAX didn't take and lacks NPOV to make the claim that security is inadequate when PAX has its own statement. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

I'm not sure why we don't just say she has security concerns. The PAX response, or perceived lack of, doesn't help the reader much really and seems to be taking sides. — Strongjam (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Saying she has security concerns implies that PAX is unwilling or unable to address them, and casts blame the same way PeterTheFourth believes that I was casting blame on the studio. By using neutral language, we can simply say that the security situation could not be handled by both parties and not have this problem at all. Unfortunately, NPOV language has been repeatedly reverted so far, so I'm not even sure where to go from here. This little kerfuffle is a great example of the continued problem with the editing on this article and the NPOV problems inherent within. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the facts of the matter, however, DO lay the responsibility of not responding to Wu's concerns on PAX's non responsiveness. to pretend otherwise is inappropriately representing the facts as they appear in the source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wu's claims, at least. The facts are not clear, we only have claims. Your edits intentionally and inappropriately take a side, we don't do that here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

We're not taking sides, we're reporting the reliable sources. We cannot and should not assign 'sides' to reliable sources and use this to determine how we source them, we merely look to how relevant what they say is and how often reliable sources say this. You see this kerfuffle as representative of issues on this article- does the fact that you have created and maintained this kerfuffle at all strike you as pertinent? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources do not say that PAX has insufficient security, as you edited into the article. You're right that we shouldn't assign "sides," so why keep doing it? Help make the section and the article neutral instead of blaming me for the failures of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That edit is fine it's saying she cited insufficient security as a reason, not that there was insufficient security. — Strongjam (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Which also isn't really what she said. Maybe we just need to quote her directly at this point, since NPOV arguments aren't working. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the edit in question is no longer what the article says. so if your quibble was about the particular wording of that edit, i believe we are done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, what I linked to was a direct response to someone regarding a broader issue with the section. My specific issue with the section remains, as we're not handling this, or much of anything in this article, appropriately or within project policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not own the article, Thagor. You're going to have to learn when to stop arguing with others. I earnestly encourage you to consider the length and tenacity with which you have argued against such a minor addition to the article, and even now are arguing with editors even while you have your own wording in place. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) If your claim is the same as at the start, which appears to be that our article content is inappropriately " put blame on the organizers, " you will need to demonstrate that we are not appropriately representing what the source says. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have done so, so this is a moot request. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I see only one editor who has an issue understanding what I've written, Thagor. This immense quote you've inserted does not aid the article. I'm going to ask you to please step back from this issue. It is very minor, and it seems you are engaging in point making behaviour with the edit you've included. This article does not need such consternation, nor such a largely undue addition. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Really, the whole paragraph is sort of tacked on, and I would favor removal, but if we're going to add in such minutae, then we need to handle it in a NPOV way. If you read other articles, you'll see that this is a normal way to handle it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Without unshakeable evidence, we cannot assert or imply that there is any doubt of the legitimacy of Wu’s concerns. First, she is the CEO and this is her business, which she is assumed to know. Second, no reliable source has given any indication at all that a reasonable and prudent employer would have no reason for concern. Third, we all know of the YouTube video threats and the subsequent restraining order, both well reported; there is absolutely no call to insinuate that any doubt exists. The natural interpretation of the facts before us is that Wu’s firm sought security assurances with which the host was unable to comply, either because of venue logistics, cost, or considerations of liability. Any other interpretation seems uncomfortably close to yesterday’s BLP-violation at Brianna Wu’s page, which I believe was a repeat from a few days ago. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, restraining order? Do we have RS for that? Should be in the article if we do. Or at least her bio. Edit: Found it in an essay of Wu's but no RS's. If anyone has an RS for that let me know, it would be useful. — Strongjam (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)She tweeted it, and has posted on Huffington on her own, but no reliable third party sources of it as of yet that I've seen. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this article from VentureBeat? Not sure on reliability, but we use VentureBeat twice in the article already. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It still would have to be attributed directly to her, there's no independent verification. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That article doesn't attribute it to her. If we used that as a source neither would we. — Strongjam (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The article absolutely attributes it to her. The relevant paragraph starts "As described in her recent post..." Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PAX may not have responded to Wu but they did responde to Polygon:

Update: A Penny Arcade representative responded to Polygon with the following:

The safety of our attendees, panelists and exhibitors is the number one priority for PAX. To achieve this, the show:

Conducts bag searches for all people entering the building Has Boston PD in addition to the in house Building Security on site during all hours of the show Enforces the six rules of PAX at every event, since the very first PAX

For the safety of our attendees, exhibitors and panelists we cannot divulge the specifics of our security programs. That said, the well-being of everyone attending PAX always has been and always will be the highest priority for the city of Boston, the convention center and PAX. ​

​PAX prides itself on helping tens of thousands of gamers come together to share what they love most, in a safe environment.​​

They link to the six rules of PAX here [2]. Harassment is forbidden in the six rules. I don't think it's fair to PAX or neutral to imply they didn't meet security concerns. Wu doesn't explain why the 6 rules of PAX are inadequate in any way or detail so to imply that they are puts PAX in a false light. The same argument the we should defer to Wu on her business implies we should defer to a security organization about security. --DHeyward (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense to me. PAX issued some boilerplate about security in response to a request for comment. How does this negate, clarify or disprove anything being discussed here at all? drseudo (t) 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It provides some context, especially given the accusations levied. It was worthy enough of note that Polygon sought and posted the response, so clearly reliable sources see it as a relevant point of clarification, as do I. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Polygon sought and posted the response as an act of journalistic due diligence. We are WP:NOTNEWS, so we're not obligated to print everything a news source would, and vice versa. drseudo (t) 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Context and clarification of what? It's a very generic, non-specific, "We take X very seriously" statement. It doesn't add anything to the article. — Strongjam (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Context and clarification of the security situation that Wu speaks of. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It neither contextualizes nor clarifies "the security situation that Wu speaks of." Rather, it creates the impression that Wu's concerns about security were groundless, an impression that is not supported by any RS. drseudo (t) 01:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wu doesn't contextualize or clarify her comments, either. Either use neutral language or include the response. Polygon published it for a reason. Wu isn't more notable on PAX security that the PAX security people and we shouldn't presume that she is. --DHeyward (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Polygon published the response for a reason: because they are a news outlet. We are not. If a boilerplate response about security doesn't enhance the article, we can—and should—leave it out. drseudo (t) 02:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. In this case, it absolutely enhances the article by giving the proper context to the claims being made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Journalists give notable viewpoints space. So do we. And yes, it adds as much to the article as Wu's stated reason about pulling out. Same as the University of Utah speech pullout out by Sarkeesian. We published Sarkeesian's reasoning and the response by those that are experts in security. --DHeyward (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, 1) journalism has a different purpose than encyclopedia coverage and 2) What exactly does PAX's non-comment which doesnt name either Wu or GG have to do with the subject of this encyclopedia article because 3) merely being verifiable does not mandate inclusion? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In the end, we should just word the phrase in a way that lends respect to both PAX and Wu. PAX's boilerplate response is still a response. Wu's concerns are still valid nonetheless, but they are — as with any other person's concerns — based on one's own personal perception. Meşteşugarul - U 08:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is what I tried to do at the beginning. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of my reverted edits

So I removed the following text

On Twitter, Sarkeesian called the episode "sickening". She wrote, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."

Which was reverted. The reason I removed it was that the only source is the tweet itself. Nothing established it's significance. HalfHat 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being removed. We don't need any individual reviews of the episode. Something summarizing the general response to the show from RS would probably be better to replace it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe I reverted. While self-published sources can seldom be used in biographies of living persons, one exception is that a self-published source is a reliable source for the author's opinions. The stated rationale was that the source was Twitter, and since (a) there's no reason to think that the statement does not in fact reflect its author's views, and (b) that she holds these views is uncontroversial, there's no reason not to use the reference.

Now, we're asked to consider an entirely different rationale. The argument for significance is, presumably, that Sarkeesian is a noted expert in the area and is mentioned elsewhere in the article; her opinion is perhaps more notable and more interesting than a random writer. However, if we want to remove opinions, there are plenty of isolated minority opinions that remain in the article; Eric Kaine comes to mind. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian, along with many others, have made countless tweets, it's a site infamous for unthoughtout blurts. A tweet from anyone per se, I don't think is significant to any topic. HalfHat 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the opinion of the person upon which the character was based and whose life was "ripped from the headlines" for the show is far more relevant than many of the other tangential content included in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not like it's an article written by them though, it's a single tweet. It barely even shows what they think of something, let alone how strongly, and how relevant to the issue. If their important find a quote from an article. HalfHat 18:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"it barely shows what they think of something"?? really? while 95% of twits are incoherent rubbish, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."" makes it pretty damn clear what they think . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD. While it may be decided not to include that quote in the article, it's clear that this TV episode is based, in part, on her life experience. Including her perspective on whether it was fairly represented is of more significance than the view of an uninvolved viewer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be more efficient to clarify what policy grounds leads Half to dislike the quotation. My first impression from the edit summary was WP:RS, but that’s not an objection because Sarkeesian’s own statement is a reliable source for her opinion. The question of "significance" might be WP:DUE, but as Liz says, since the episode is partly based on her experience, her own reaction seems germane. It might be argued that the entire television episode is insufficiently important to discuss here and that it's a question of WP:COATRACK, but we include several very obscure statements from much less prominent pundits above who express minority views. WP:COATRACK applies to them with even greater force, since WP:DUE requires that we remove the outlandish coats along with the others. I do think we should not imply without argument that any of Sarkeesian's statements are "unthoughtout," even in a talk page, as thats skirting WP:BLP. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I was really criticizing at all was the reputation of Twitter since it requires no editing or care to make a tweet, we are talking about a site where very respectable people get into flame wars, as mentioned in a Sixty Symbols video. Just to clarify though, my objection is two fold, 1. it's only a primary source with nothing to show mainstream sources consider it even slightly notable. 2. It's on Twitter, a sight known for glibness. HalfHat 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your points, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources states Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field and then lists some exceptions which I don't think applies in this case. Social media, while seemingly ephemeral, is treated the same as if Sarkeesian had written a blog entry on her opinion of the show. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Or if Sarkeesian had said this in a public speech. Lots of people say silly things, but we continue to quote people who do say interesting things. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the quote a bit shaky - her reaction hasn't been covered by any independent sources (as far as I know, slap me if I'm wrong), and it would be silly if we cited a tweet anytime we wanted to get a view in lieu of the absence of secondary sources. The only reason I see to include it is because multiple sources have mentioned that one of the episode's characters is modeled after Sarkeesian, and so a reaction from Sarkeesian seems natural and appropriate - though I'd much rather see any reactions to the episode come from reliable and independent sources. Regardless, my larger concern is with whether or not the tweet is coming from Sarkeesian herself, as is implied in the article. The Twitter account represents the Feminist Frequency organization, and while it seems apparent that Sarkessian does post tweets on the account (and if I had to toss in a bet, I'd say she posted this one too), sans confirmation there's ultimately no guarantee that any particular tweet from that Twitter account is from Sarkeesian herself. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Where will we be setting the line on what tweets are viable for use here if this is allowable? This is not a road I think we want to go down, no one will be happy as a result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Even on simply the basis that Feminist Frequency has become a major voice in the critique of GG gaming culture, lacking any of Sarkeesians personal involvement, the analysis is appropriate to be covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Source for the effects of Gamergate

This op-ed – Goldberg, Michelle (February 20, 2015). "Feminist writers are so besieged by online abuse that some have begun to retire". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 20, 2015. – talks about the effects of things like Gamergate are starting to cause feminists to retire from writing. Maybe usable in our article to talk about the effects of Gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Only skimmed through but there doesn't seem to be much focus on Gamergate, the main case of a woman retiring from games jouranlism due to Gamergate is Jenn Frank, and that's mentioned in the article. Seems useful for an article on online harassment, which I have only just noticed does not exist. Anyone here up for a fun and collaborative effort? Bosstopher (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You should probably gather existing articles first, I think that could work as a category, albeit a small one. doxing and swatting come to mind. HalfHat 18:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Pew Report on Online Harassment is an invaluable resource, especially as it looks into gender differences in online harassment. I believe it's used as a source in this article but it really focuses on all kinds of harassment such as in comments sections of articles and message boards. It's a great read, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian Prominence

Rather than wade in and edit a page that is clearly the result of heavy editing as it stands, I wanted to raise an issue here in the expectation that this section will simply be deleted if others do not respond to it. In the first paragraph as it stands, Anita Sarkeesian is specifically mentioned and that paragraph ends with mention of "a threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event". Now while certainly Sarkeesian is tangentially related to the Gamergate controversy, she was subjected to harassment before Gamergate. For example, to quote her Wikipedia page, "in March 2014 Sarkeesian was scheduled to speak and receive an award at the 2014 Game Developers Choice Awards. The organizers later revealed that they had received an anonymous bomb threat and that San Francisco police had swept the Moscone Center hall before the event proceeded." Given that the shooting threat on 14 October 2014 was made without the Gamergate hashtag, and - both in tactics and nature - followed a pattern that preceded the controversy, should this incident really be included in the head paragraph of this article?

There are two concerns here. In the first place, certainly the controversy is most widely known as a consequence of the objectionable tactics used by people who identified themselves with the hashtag. Once you have mentioned "doxing, threats of rape, and death threats", however, is it adding to a reader's understanding of the subject to specify a particular threat, especially given that did not identify with the hashtag? (For comparison, the first paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on Islam do not mention terrorism, nor should they.) The other concern is that while there may be some confusion in general media about how the Gamergate controversy situates itself within the wider and ongoing controversy regarding sexism in the video game industry and misogynistic harassment, Wikipedia should aim to dispel that confusion rather than merely reiterating it.

My suggestion would be that Sarkeesian is adequately featured in the "Subsequent Harassment" section of this article and that she could safely be removed from the first paragraph.

I would further suggest that the contentious term "misgynistic attacks" be substituted. I would suggest "abuse, often expressed in misogynistic language". The distinction is important because "misogynistic attacks" suggests that the hatred was directed at these particular women because they were women, which is certainly not known to be the case. Sordel (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:LEDE the lede is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article. The fact that Sarkeesian is adequately featured in the rest of the article (mentioned by name 25 other times) is all the more reason to mention her in the lede. Bosstopher (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, although counting how many times her name appears in the article only goes to show how disproportionately prominent she has become in an article on which she has comparatively little direct bearing. (Sarkeesian is not mentioned in the article on Sexism in video gaming, which is her main concern, to which she is directly relevant and which as it currently stands is largely concerned with sexual harassment.) As a commentator she is likely to be a secondary actor in a number of controversies and I would compare her relevance to this article as similar to Al Sharpton's relevance to Bernhard Goetz: while Goetz is mentioned in the Sharpton and Goetz articles, he is not mentioned in the Lede to Goetz's article. While Adam Baldwin is a principal figure in Gamergate (and credited with coining the hashtag), he is not mentioned in the Lede to this article. The Lede is required to be neutral, and part of this should entail distinguishing between figures of direct relevance (as Zoe Quinn clearly is) and figures who are connected largely by association. I do not say that she should be removed from the article completely, and this is because while she is a secondary actor (and secondary target) it may well be the case that readers consult this entry due to Sarkeesian's media presence.

Sordel (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE we cover the subject in the manner that the reliable sources cover the subject. If you can show that the reliable sources do not include Sarkeesian as a significant aspect of their coverage, then there may be a discussion. However, I find that unlikely as the terrorist death threats against Sarkeesian were the incident that brought GG to the NYT and that she was the model for the "ripped from the headlines" tv show about gg, it seems that we have her relevance appropriately covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

When looking at all the sources? No, they actually don't use her as a significant aspect of the coverage. They mention her as part of the whole when discussing the harassment aspect, but Sordel is basically right that we spend perhaps more time than we should in the lede and, given what Bosstopher notes today, perhaps even mention her less specifically. Yes, undue weight matters, and this proposal would go a ways in balancing this article out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

They cite her as a key component of the harassment, which is the basis of the almost the entirety of the coverage of the subject. The mention the GG obsession with her as a feminist critic as the key identification is a culture war which is the basis of the rest of the coverage of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a disconnect here, as criticism of her predates the establishment of Gamergate as a named thing. And if what you say is an accurate assessment of the Gamergate activity surrounding Sarkeesian, then the lead is inaccurate as it only notes Sarkeesian as the recipient of harassment, not as a cultural critic who has been criticized herself. So which is it? If we're going to actually start using this article to accurately talk about the movement, I'm glad you're on board and how we address Sarkeesian is a solid place to start on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian is among the most frequently discussed gamergate targets and also a prominent gamergate critic. It's telling that this proposal ends in a suggestion to minimize or overlook the centrality of misogyny to the attacks, and the centrality of the attacks to gamergate as described in the preponderance of the sources. The proposal being contrary to policy, it cannot be accepted..MarkBernstein (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As NPOV is policy, this is a proposal that addresses it head on and, if we're looking to build an encyclopedia entry, must be considered and addressed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV is a policy. This suggestion however, is a flagrant attempt to violate it. I think we are done unless you wish to continue at AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what your threat is about, nor do I see this as an attempt to violate it. It is a good faith proposal from a long-time (albeit sporadic) editor that addresses key problems with this article, and deserves to be treated as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

the initial comment from a goodfaith editor new to the subject matter is not necessarily the issue. However, you Thargor Orlando, as a frequent editor on the subject should be familiar enough with the sources to help that new editor understand that their perceptions are not supported by the sources, rather than to encourage the beating of the dead horse and participating in WP:TE on a topic that has been endlessly discussed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You and I continue to have a disagreement on the sources, what they say, how we're using them, and how this article has been manipulated source-wise. This is not a dead horse, this is trying to repair an article that does not conform to site policies. Discussion is how we build consensus, not trying to continually remove dissenting viewpoints from the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to come back to the question of sources, it is not the case that all first-tier discussions of Gamergate mention Anita Sarkeesian. The initial articles in The New Yorker and London Telegraph dealt with Quinn alone and were the means by which the Gamergate controversy came to wider attention. If you Google "Anita Sarkeesian Gamergate" you will find that there are no references to her until 13 October 2014, at which point Zoe Quinn had been receiving death threats for over eighteen months and the hashtag had been used well over a million times. This is despite that fact that the harassment experienced by Sarkeesian is very similar to the harassment experienced by Quinn, and was in the public domain. Although Sarkeesian was a target of people with a similar mentality (and perhaps in many cases the same people) harassment of Sarkeesian only became conflated with the Gamergate controversy after she herself drew attention to it following the Utah State University talk cancelation. The reason that this episode was so widely covered is because of the mass shooting threat, which was not associated with the hashtag. Regarding Anita Sarkeesian as a central figure of the controversy is thus not a reflection of available sources: it simply reflects the sensational nature of a (possibly) unconnected threat coupled with the fact that she is a more public figure than the original victims, who were both games developers. Sordel (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, before Sarkeesian became the target of gamergate trolls, there is little press coverage of her in relation to gamergate. We are not however writing this article at a time prior to her entanglement in the mess. since gamergate began their persistant assault upon Sarkeesian, who has nothing to do with games journalism, she has consistently been in the center of the coverage of the controversy. gamergates obsession with her as a non journalist but rather a feminist commentator on games has been one of the key items that have turned the discussion of gamergate from pure harassment to harassment as an example of culture war in games. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing you've said here has addressed what Sordel has correctly pointed out. Can you address his concern, or is it time to start looking closer at how much attention we're giving Sarkeesian in regards to this topic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The concern that Sarkeesian wasnt mentioned before she became involved has been addressed as irrelevant. The fact that she has been widely covered in everything since gg focused their claws on her is quite obvious by reviewing the sources since then. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant on what basis? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

irrelevant on the basis that of course she was not discussed before she was involved and that we are writing the article from the perspective of now, not prior to the time she was involved. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to state what I shouldn't have to but probably should: I don't have a position on Gamergate (other than, of course, the social media harassment is unacceptable and the initial criticism of Zoe Quinn was overstated) and am only interested in the accuracy of the article. I'm not contending that there is no point in the history of Gamergate at which Anita Sarkeesian does not become a relevant subject but the inaccuracy of the article as it currently stands favours one reading of events that does not adequately represent the timeline. Saying that Sarkeesian is mentioned by all sources subsequent to a particular point is rather like saying that the Duchess of Cambridge is mentioned in a significant number of articles about childbirth after a certain date: articles about Gamergate tend to be published either in popular media or in articles representing a particular ideological standpoint. Although the sources likely to be cited therefore have no obligation to neutrality, we do. Anita Sarkeesian is clearly something of a lightning rod: people who identify with Gamergate are generally hostile to her, people who are hostile to Gamergate frequently invoke her as a standard-bearer. But to treat her as a principal target of Gamergate is contentious and non-neutral: it overlooks the fact that Gamergate would have existed and merited a page on Wikipedia regardless of whether she existed or not. More importantly (and I suspect that this is why some argue for her continued prominence here) if Anita Sarkeesian is regarded as a principal target of Gamergate then it supports the position that Gamergate's claims to deal with journalistic ethics are specious because Anita Sarkeesian has no bearing on that particular argument. It paints a misleading picture that a hashtag used over a million times before a stated feminist was even embroiled in the controversy is specifically anti-feminist. If someone who is more widely covered than Anita Sarkeesian (say, Paris Hilton) becomes a target of people using that hashtag then does the weight of coverage alone turn that person into someone given equal prominence in the Lede? Would there really be no value in reworking the Lede to clarify what seems (to a neutral and reasonably well-informed bystander) to be an overview that seems factually misleading?Sordel (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Source discussion

Please identify where the article does not comply with site policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted numerous times, we spend a lot of time on secondary issues, we give undue weight to some sources and not enough weight to other sources of information, we aren't doing a good job vetting sources, not actually describing the movement in clear terms, we have the title of the article at a POV name, we're using questionable sources, we're not doing enough proper attribution of information and claims, and so on. The article is still very broken, and the continued ownership issues we're seeing has not yet been resolved even with a bunch of topic bans. Does that scratch the surface enough to start? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

1) identify secondary issues that should be cleaned out. (note: harassment is not one of them) 2) Which sources have too much weight and why do you think so? And much of the content as I look is from some of the highest quality sources, NYTs Columbia Journalism review, PBS etc so I think we are doing a pretty good job of vetting sources 3) " not actually describing the movement in clear terms," we are actually following the sources which say that when something consists merely of a hashtag, clearly describing it as a "movement" is pretty much impossible 4) the name of the article reflects what has been covered by the reliable sources and so is not an issue 5) Where specifically are items that are not attributed? 6) Vague claims are not specifics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

1 and 2) The focus on harassment is one of them, as it is given undue weight to the actual topic of Gamergate. The continued excuse that "this is what reliable sources say" comes from the fact that we've largely excised information used in reliable sources to discuss what it's about, and misused sources by assuming they get it right. The few times we've done the right thing, such as our handling of the ArbCom/Guardian piece, is commendable, but we can and should do more. We are not required by policy to focus on one aspect because of undue and counterfactual coverage in reliable sources, we are required to use our heads a bit. This should not be construed as an elimination of any specific aspect, but more a continued attempt to get us to handle one aspect of the dispute with the proper weight and context. 3) We're not really following the sources, we're following one aspect of the sources. If we were following the sources, we'd spend the bulk of time focused on what Gamergate is described as. You've asserted that it's solely a harassment movement, and the reliable sources do not take this point of view at all. 4) As demonstrated before, this is not a factual statement. There is no room for disagreement on this, you are factually wrong on this matter. 5) A very quick skim again shows problems with the second and fourth paragraphs in history, third para in subsequent, first para in debate over ethics, and I'll just stop there for now because it's showing even more POV issues again that need work. It's definitely improved, but we have a ways to go. 6) Vague claims of my supposed "vague claims" is not something I can address and isn't helpful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources focus almost entirely on harassment and hence the article will too. Pushing to have our article present something other than a primary focus on harassment is plainly pushing the article against WP:NPOV.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And there's a continued dispute on this for the reasons I have outlined. Taking a hardline stance does not do anything in terms of helping build consensus and bringing the article in line with our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

While this is yet another example of those "disputes" it is typical in that those "disputing" are never actually able to provide any support for the premise or position by showing actual significant coverage of the topic sans harassment in reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

When I point to the sources we use and say we're not handling them correctly, that is support of the premise and position. When I note that the coverage deals with both, that is support for the premise and position. Discussion you disagree with is not tendentuous, and blanket accusations as such are not helpful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have specific sources to discuss, fine, bring them out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is definitively more general. We rely on sources not to flesh out the article, but advance a narrative. Part of the problem is that the media has not covered the issue responsibly, but I'll go back to my comparison to the GMO debate, something I've spent significant time on Wikipedia working on. What we know about GMOs is that the scientific consensus is that they're tested and safe, but the media consensus largely tells us otherwise. Under your stance for this article, our articles on genetically modified foods should be primarily about their lack of safety and the concerns of activists. Yet, when we actually verify the information, when we use proper editorial discretion, we move forward with the scientific consensus as it reflects what's going on. The same way with Gamergate: we spend an inordinate amount of time on harassment and trying to debunk claims instead of discussing the movement and its goals. This is not to say that the harassment narrative is not part of the complete story. It deserves its own section and an appropriate amount of coverage because of its place in the broader discussion. Unfortunately, this article places that small part of the issue (a part, by the way, that has a questionable relationship to the overall movement even as anonymous internet trolls use the hashtag as a breeding ground) front and center. It treats a commonplace problem of death threats on the internet (something I provided links about in the archive) as somehow specific and unique to Gamergate and gives it significant play. We can't do original research in the article, but when we're discussing how to use sources, we need to consider why we're taking claims as standard when authorities and those "in the know" do not give them the same credence, and balance it accordingly. In other words, it requires us to be smart about how we build an article, and make sure that we're not actually putting the fringe behaviors of questionably-related trolls as the main point of the article. When I first came to this article, I hadn't even heard of Gamergate. I did the research, and you're correct that the media spends a good deal of time on the harassment narrative (it's not the majority as we continue to assert), and you're correct that the majority of sources we use here (not all of them) are talking that up. When you remove (such as the Forbes/Eric Kain pieces) or diminish (like Cathy Young) reliable sources that actually speak in detail to what's happening and actually provide proper, sourced refutations of many of the claims, how can we then turn around and call the article accurate or NPOV? We don't need to start linking to Gamergate blogs or TotalBiscuit videos to get to that point, we just need to actually handle this with care. We're not doing that right now. We're instead advancing a narrative. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, specific sources are required for any meaningful discussion. and " Part of the problem is that the media has not covered the issue responsibly, " is a non starter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it's a general problem, it requires general discussion to start. I have detailed where the problems lie, so if you're looking to assist in fixing it, let's do so. And no, it's not a nonstarter to discuss how the media is failing on this topic. It's actually key to getting to the bottom of this, just like we've had to for other controversial topics with similar problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You have laid out general claims of where you think there are problems. those general claims have been countered as not being supported by sources or policy. Now your options are provide specifics for action or come to the conclusion that our article generally, appropriately follows the sources and policies and your general claims are unfounded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

They have not been countered, unfortunately. They've been dismissed without supporting evidence, even still. Policy requires us to write an article from a neutral point of view. Until the article gets even close to that point, you cannot say that policy doesn't support what is being said here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, until you can specifically identify where our article is not appropriately following the reliable sources, your assertions of "NPOV" are unactionable and meaningless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, the undue weight regarding the harassment claims as opposed to what the movement is about. The NPOV title and structure. Please read what is being directed toward you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong there if you think the sources in the article, particularly the highest quality mainstream ones are not covering the subject as primarily harassment / harassment as evidence of a culture war. If I am wrong you will be able to quickly specify those sources that support your claim that they are not covering harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In the case of genetically-modified foods, there exists a substantial scientific and technical literature which Wikipedia can, should, and does examine and to which it accords WP:DUE attention. In the case of GamerGate, there exists no scientific or technical literature. The published sources, unfortunately, do not attach much (or, really any) credence to what you assert is true -- they report on GamerGate’s misogyny and harassment, period. Those “in the know” are the writers in the Washington Post, the New Yorker, the Boston Globe. For some reason you want to think that Eric Cain or Cathy Young or Total Biscuit know better, that you know better -- but we don’t do that: we follow the WP:DUE weight of the WP:RS reliable sources. Please stop this; it's pure WP:FLAT in search of a WP:FORUM.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, the published sources do lend great credence to what I'm saying. I know this topic has impacted you in a really significant way (the writings you link make that very clear, and I do not intend to speak out of turn by noting this), and it might be why you're perhaps letting your own point of view shade things. I have no dog in this fight outside of a neutral encyclopedia article that handles the topic responsibly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been asked multiple times to provide these sources. Claiming sources exist without actually ever providing them is beyond disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And multiple times, I have told you that those sources are already in the article. Please stop with the continued baseless accusations. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There are 175 sources in the article. Which ones are you speaking about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the best solution here would be to create a list of sources which espouse alternative viewpoints that you believe have been left out or underutilized. Also it's probably not wise to make even vaguely personal comments about Mark given that he is on a final warning about making personal comments, and would not be able to respond in turn. This is a good thing given how he responded in the past, but that still doesn't mean you should do things that can be construed as abusing the situation. Bosstopher (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a hardline stance to say that we should follow the source. The consensus has already been built and is not ambiguous. The current article, in accordance with policy, describes the known activities of Gamergate -- its campaigns of misogynist threats against women in computing. One might wish Gamergate had accomplished other things, but it has not -- or, if it has, those other accomplishments have not been widely reported by reliable sources.

You say that the name of the article is objectively wrong, yet the contrary consensus could hardly be more clear. Just a few days ago, you proposed to rename the article; four individuals supported the idea, twenty three opposed, and it was swiftly snow-closed. Yet here again, just a day or two later, we're asked to contemplate precisely the same proposal. This is not consensus building, it's open defiance of both consensus and policy, backed by WP:POINTy threats that you'll bring complaints against editors who do not conform. If there's WP:OWNership here, we know (and now the world knows: http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html) where it lies. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, I have not threatened to bring any complaints, sorry. The rest of this is not an accurate rant, and I don't see any need to address it further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperative and collegial approach. What I wrote is accurate, concise, and speaks directly to the points (such as they are) you raised. I'm glad you plan to drop this subject, however, as I am confident my explanation, an TRPoD’s, represent the consensus of the sources and the consensus of Wikipedians. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

References

A magical and wondrous list of heterodox sources

Conversation above doesnt seem to be going anywhere so I've decided to collate all the heterodox reliable sources I can find for discussion, so we can discuss whether or not they have been given due weight. WIP right now, because this is a soul crushing experience and seeing the words 'published 5 month ago' on an article about gamergate really gets you down. Feel free to dispute reliable sourciness for articles linked, and add any articles to the list.Bosstopher (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Heterodox sources

Cathy Young 'GamerGate: Part I: Sex, Lies, and Gender Games' Reason claims Gamergate rejects harassment, portrays "Gamers are over" articles as harsh attacks, downplays role of Zoe Quinn, notes harassment gators have faced, argues that female gators have a strong influence within the movement. Worth noting that this the original article this was based on had to be amended to remove false accusations against Zoe Quinn. Cathy Young 'GamerGate, Part 2: Videogames Meet Feminism' Reason Doesnt focus directly on Gamergate more a general discussion on feminism and videogames. Does however argue that Mike Cernovitch is a 'genuine misogynist' who does not represent Gamergate, which is better represented by its female advocates. Also takes Bokhari's "anti-authoritarian" line. Cathy Young 'Misandry in the GamerGate Controversy' Reason Rejoice tRPOD! She refers to it as a controversy and not a movement. Criticizes the Newsweek analysis. Notes both sides have been harassed. Argues gamergate IS a backlash against feminism (but also ethics), talks about a woman who sided with Gjoni. Auerbach 'Letter to a Young Male Gamer' Slate Sides very strongly with Quinn, says people should stop even criticizing Quinn for fear of driving women out of the industry. However praises 4chan for supporting TFYC. Really strong critique of Gawker and Kotaku (acusses them of hypocrisy), argues GG should self police. Auerbach 'Gaming Journalism is Over' Slate No point of summarising this one we've all already re-read it 20,000 times. Auerbach 'How to end Gamergate' Slate Ditto Auerbach 'Twitter is broken:Gamergate proves it Argues Leigh Alexander's twitter behaviour is unprofessional of her. Notes 'sealioning' by gators, harassment Liana K faced from GG, notes harassment faced by GGers. Claims twitter brings out the worst in everyone. Kain 'GamerGate: A Closer Look At The Controversy Sweeping Video Games' Forbes Focuses on role of Streisand effect, TFYC and Fish. Looks at connotations of the words 'SJW' and 'misogynerd.' Argues press and PR are too cosy and readers no longer trust them. Also alienated by overly left wing press. Argues people like Milo coopted GG Kain 'The Gamer is dead long live the Gamer' Forbes Kain being Kain and discussing the 'gamer entitlement' issues in a Kainesque way. Argues Leigh Alexander's GaD article was needlessly combatative, and is 'nearly convinced' that most gator dont actually care about ethics just anti-feminism. Kain 'What #GamerGate Is Actually About?' Forbes GG is not about ethics in journalism, is anti-feminist criticism in reviews but tolerates right wing criticsm. More Kainesque 'gamer entitlement' discussion. Claims there's not enough healthy dialogue between feminists and their critics, and generally little actual discourse in games journalism, GG has only served to make things worse in this regard. Exit pursued by Bing Crosby. Interview with Adam Baldwin for Rawstory Baldwin's views on GG: GG won, liberals agenda etc. Hayley Tsukayama 'How some Gamergate supporters say the controversy could stop “in one week”' WaPo Notes how Gamergate define themselves, harassment faced by gators, and streisand effect. Bokhari 'Gamergate: An issue with two sides' TechCrunch Argues gamergate has been reported to purposely emphasise harassment and not the good things they've done. Anita is the new Jack Thompson and game journalists have joined the dark side. TFYC and notyourshield show gamergate arent misogynist. Culture warriors vs gamers. GaD articles were "culture warrior attacks" equates them to doxxing and hacking of TFYC. Info on Streisand effect Greg Tito 'Why I Still Call Myself a Gamer' Escapist Condemns harassment and says GaD articles were poorly phrased Male Game Dev interviews Escapist Can't be arsed to read these and summarise (I'm fairly certain this is a universal reaction and the reason they were never included in the article) William Usher 'Stardock CEO, League of Legends Devs, Others Support #GamerGate' Cinemablend Self explanatory title: although interesting to see Devi Ever's pro-GG arguments before she changed sides and changed name Pete Haas 'GamerGate: Everyone Hates Each Other And I'm Really Tired' Cinemablend Streisand effect, why there was a backlash against GaD, similar ideas to Kain about a divide between journalists and gamers, but believes the rift is not as big as people make it out to be. Whole load of notyourshield and TFYC articles by William Usher on cinemablend [3][4][5] Mike Diver 'GamerGate Hate Affects Both Sides, So How About We End It?' Vice Claims the misogyny aspect of GG makes easy headlines. harassment of gators. Notes feminist gators. Interview with female feminist gator. Mentions GameJournopros, and gamers are dead as grievances. Vice interview with Eron Gjoni "Dont vilify Eron Gjoni" Probably not relevant to the article, but very heterodox. Matthew Codd 'Gamergate supporter receives death threats' About boogie Carter Dotson 'I'm ashamed of progressive game culture, and here's why' PocketGamer claims GG hates the way progressive culture is operating, argues for positive change instead of negative criticism. Praises TFYC

• Using Cathy Young: You would need to point out that it's largely opinion, and that she takes an atypical stance on what feminism. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using Kain: There are 29 archives, and the Kain debate appears on almost all of them. Largely opinion, and it looks like many try to use Kain's opinions to insert content that is not fact. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using cinemablend.com: Not familiar with this website. RS? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using Bokhari: Um... He spends a lot of time calling stuff supported by the majority of the RS myths. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Using Mike Diver (vice): Hard to view him as an RS when he's going on about GameJournoPros - the conspiracy idea around that is largely discredited by most RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"We can't possibly use Mike Diver as a heterodox source to represent Gamergate! His views are heterodox, and he supports Gamergate!" What's the point of collecting sources on Gamergate if you're going to have this mentality? Of course a heterodox article written from the point of view of Gamergate is going to support Gamergate and not accuse its own group of misogyny. You don't honestly believe that Gamergate supporters are a cabal of evil misogynists hiding their motives behind fiendish trickery, do you? I hope you're not looking for a reliable "pro-Gamergate" article that for some insane reason admits to and discusses Gamergate's inherent, objective, inhuman badness. I'm sorry, but any article that sympathizes with Gamergate or feels compelled to explain their interests is not going to disparage that group with those kinds of insults! YellowSandals (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the idea of conspiracy among "GameJournoPros" is thoroughly debunked by most other RS calls his reliability into question. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)