Talk:Video game controversies

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Asuuske. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jassim-95 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jameel Mashriqi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jameel Mashriqi.

"Gamergate controversy in 2013 and 2014"

[Historical-revisionist game of telephone intensifies], evermore. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Why didn't you correct this error? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Because I told myself to never directly touch anything GG, and never did, and that's for 2 reasons: 1) I don't think I should as I was personally involved so shouldn't edit about basically myself, and 2) I've seen anti-GG editors who don't have such scruples regarding POV editing actively work to ban their enemies to keep their stranglehold on the narrative and I've had enough problems. Btw, it will be easy for you to find the so-called "reliable sources" stating that GG did happen in 2013, because the mass media lies about it are often very confused and contradicting each other in all kinds of ways. For some examples of "GG in 2013": [1][2][3] (one of these being AP no less, and to quote the top comment from one them: "Some-one should go edit wikipedia to state Gamergate started in 2013 and cite the Vice article as proof."). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that making wild accusations of impropriety and engaging in conspiracy theories that people are 'out to get' GamerGaters is just as involving as editing the article. You really should step back from the subject if you have so much issue discussing it civilly. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

GG absolutely started in 2013 (August), but it did continue through at least a good year if not more from them. --Masem (t) 19:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is confusing, because I distinctly remember it starting August 2014. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Shoot yes, got my years mixed up. The instigating post was August 2014. That said, events leading to that were queuing up in the year prior (eg a game jam central to the issue was in 2013, IIRC). --Masem (t) 19:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that it has history dating before August 2014, such as the Game Jam and Feminist Frequency. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The hashtag didn't exist before the exact day of August 27, 2014, you guys. "Conspiracy theories" - Masem can attest, as he was victimized even as he's anti, for just trying to be a neutral even a little bit. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it didn't exist that day - we know the tag came from Adam Baldwin (at least as we can RS) within a couple weeks after 20+ sites posted their "gamers don't matter" articles. Mind you, there was a HECK of a lot of telephone-gaming that happend with GG, and I won't pretend at the end of the day, a certain narrative on GG "won" because it came from RSes, but unfortunately, we can't do anything about that on WP until we have RSes to counter the narrative. --Masem (t) 19:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Eaxactly August 27, yo: https://spectator.org/63898_happy-anniversary-gamergate-love-adam-baldwin/ I honestly have no idea what "a game jam central" could be about, that Chelsea VV thing was supposed to be "Rebel Jam" (which still "is coming", I guess, just like that Tingle game). The narrative was created by Wikipedia editors and is repeated after Wikipedia, complete with the widespread use of Wikipedia's exact phrase "Gamergate controvesy", and the "reliable sources" routinely linking to Wikiedia. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate any further factual inaccuracies? Your user talk page may be an acceptable place for you, a GamerGater, to talk about conspiracy theories, but this is not. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As I told you, Masem right here was a victim of a conspiracy fact. You're free to ask him to tell you in his own words about the treatment that he got for just trying to be neutral and factual and for not being hysterical in his approach. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't care about the personal opinions of the editors. Find sources, and please stop trying to implement your POV. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Uhhhh, no. WP did not create the narrative, but it did help to propagate a specific narrative due to our reliance on RSes. Eg WP:Citogenesis at play - we created an article that reflected the average of what most gaming RSes had about the situation (which was against the movement), and then mainstream sources started pulling from WP to continue that. Its a cycle that exists not only on GG but lots of other topics. But one we cannot correct. Now, that said, if we have sources that are RS that are claiming GG started in 2013 rather than 2014, that's something we can use logic and common sense to say "2014". --Masem (t) 21:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Masem might give you a plenty of evidence, you know, also of being openly hounded outside Wikipedia by Wikipedia users. As for "sources", I gave you already a sample of 3 as for the GG in 2013 time-travel claims, could find you all kinds of absurd claims from "reliable sources", and show you how they contradict even each other despite all being either influenced by or based on Wikipedia. That narrative was created in particular by one user, a former admin named Ryulong. Despite that fact he was banned already in November 2014 (for paid editing), his edits still constitute 18.4% of all edits anyone (which means over 500 people) ever did on this article: [4] (Masem being #3 on the list, but in 3 years before he was forced out eventually, not in 2 months and 1 week, during which time it did matter most). So, it's why I never edit anything GG (that and I shouldn't anyway, per both rules regarding that and my own moral standards). You asked me, I answered you, and now you know. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and one user banned for harassing Masem off-wiki had this to say afterwards, which I really recommend you to read by their own words: https://archive.is/r3nK2 (his personal edits on the article constituted additional 1.9%, not counting these he did socking "all the time" as he so proudly admitted there). But that's really all about my "theories" which you inquired of. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is any of this important? It's quite unfortunate that someone behaved poorly towards Masem, much as it is unfortunate my history of abusive behavior from people who identify as GamerGate towards my friends and I. It is, ultimately, not important to the contents of this article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bryn, since this article is about video game controversies and refers to the wide range of debates on the social effects of video games on players and broader society shouldn't there be some mention about the controversies encountered right here on Wikipedia? RS have reported on it: The Guardian, Slate, The Verge <--(I'm not sure where or if it ranks as a RS), Social Text Journal, AAAI.org, and so on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I remember this. I think this would be a worthwhile mention on the Gamergate controversy article to talk about the edit wars and the media's response. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

So I just clicked Slate's "wikipedia-s-neutrality-measure-might-be-upheld-at-the-expense-of-truth" to find out what's behind this url, and was not at all surprised to find out that "“To get the situation under control, Wikipedia community members quickly asked for other editors to pitch in and help bring on the site’s notice board,” Williams writes. Five editors, eventually nicknamed the Five Horsemen, took up the call, jumping in and trying to remove slanderous or irrelevant statements put up by Gamergaters." That guy whose, whose tweet I showed you where he's boasting the "bans don't work" as stopping him, and who was banned for his conduct not even just "irrelevant" but so bad it couldn't be been discussed on Wikipedia when he was banned (but it was "For continued serious breaches of policy, including off-wiki harassment"[5]), was one of these supposed heroic five editors standing up to the evil hordes of "Gamergaters". The article ends their shameless defense of a Wikipedia harassment campaign with "What happens to the next victim of a Wikipedia harassment campaign if the defenders are getting squeezed out through this pox-on-both-your-houses system?" But I excepted nothing just less from a "reliable source". In our reality, what had preceded it was for example Wikipedia topic-banning another user who rightly reported that harasser early: [6], and so much more, nothing of which you will find in "reliable sources" so theatrically invested in what they without any shame call "the truth". SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

But I was actually really surprised by The Guardian article, which wasn't that bad. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And The Verge is a "reliable source" too - with their article quoting at length, as if it was some sort of just a neutral "former editor" commenting, another let's call it a person of interest whose conduct regarding Masem (and others) is not hard to find as it was very open and seen here, also high profile (and possibly still continues, didn't check to find out). And who himself made another 7.4% of all edits ever made to that article. Actually The Guardian also takes to quote, this, as The Verge puts it, "influential figure", with actual influence not just through the Citogenesis but also otherwise. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And okay, I'll name the names" as they all do. It's Mark Bernstein, who, as the fifth source ([7]) says, "wrote a series of blog posts reacting to the case that have been widely read." As I said - real influence more broadly. And I see that one reliable source actually calls the pro-GG (or actually even just perceived as such, see again - the "widely read" Bernstein) editors an "anonomyous horde" / "the hordes" (repeatedly), when I wrote about the "evil hordes" it wasn't a quote but it is now. I guess that might make Masem (and their other main targets I won't name but Bernstein does) the khans, congrats Masem-Khan. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

[8] is actually sort of interesting. There's no Bernstein for once, and it seems to instead concentrate on just how Three main actors seem to dominate the stage, often strongly disagreeing with other editors and each other: Ryulong, Masem and NorthBySouthBaranof. So congrats again, you're personally a subject of actual academic research. And I'd actually ironically recommend this one, and maybe The Guardian too. And to quote from it on a standard portrayal in "reliable sources": "When reading about the dispute concerning “Gamergate controversy” in news media, on Wikipedia meta pages or other external sources, it is routinely portrayed as “pro-gamergate” against “feminists”, or at least the situation is outlined as a clear-cut, two-camps edit war." SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't really go anywhere when you are trying to push a POV and the replies are "no." There's not much more to do besides that. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Whatever was this very strange response alluding it? I'm pushing NPOV, and just facts. Facts that can be all easily checked and confirmed, mostly just on Wikipedia itself. As of "POV" issues, here's why the sources based on Bernstein should be not allowed:

Here's what this outside-Wikipedia "influential figure" (also falsely identified by The Verge as a mere "former editor", because in reality he's been not only very much involved in editing "Gamergate controversy" before but then continued doing so until 2016-04-12 [9]) would say in these "widely read posts" (as one of these sources called them) was for example this: [10] followed by [11]. The supposed "gamergate rape apologist admin / gamergate admin" he talked about in these particular ones was supposed to be precisely Masem, btw, and whom Bernstein really did try to have banned on that day (he failed). That's a POV behavior quite a lot, no? Now, four out of five of the sample "reliable sources" (including The Guardian that mind you I still rather recommended anyway) quote Bernstein directly as some sort of authoritative voice regarding the "Gamergate controversy-controversy". And no, I wouldn't approve sources quoting my own private biased opinions too. It's called NPOV, see. And I would really prefer to having to point such things out.

So anyway and once again: the #4 source [12] is fine. And the quote "When reading about the dispute concerning “Gamergate controversy” in news media, on Wikipedia meta pages or other external sources, it is routinely portrayed as “pro-gamergate” against “feminists”, or at least the situation is outlined as a clear-cut, two-camps edit war." is from them (them = Ininternational Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, via Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence), as they note this approach as incorrect. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!!, quite frankly, I initially did not realize the extent of dramah and mine-laden fields in this particular topic area, and suggest that for both our sakes, we tip-toe away from here and find some fun articles to create, ce and expand. Any article with "controversy" in the title is a big fat . Let sleeping dogs lie. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Putting an idea out there....

I have to dig deeper into how this is structured but I think we need to make a better sectioning and/or separate article related to "Violence and video games". Yes, violence is part of the controversy but its such a broad topic on its own. I would think such an article would be more about historical facets of trying to curb video games, and alluding to some of the studies that claim the connection or lack thereof of violence and video games. Just putting this out there to figure out how such a sectioning or split may be done. --Masem (t) 00:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I do take issue with the grouping we have. I kinda like how things are structured under the other category, so having this be a jump point to controversies, including violence, would make for a nicer structure. Load this article with bullets, but let the individual articles explain the details. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Gun violence

Why does this article have no information about gun violence or mass shootings? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

See previous section. It is buried in this, we really need a separate article to cover. --Masem (t) 11:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Official APA Stance on violence

It says in the article " the American Psychological Association's official stance on video games stated that "Scant evidence has emerged that makes any causal or correlational connection between playing violent video games and actually committing violent activities"" and references source 169, which is an LA Times article, and differs in opinion from the actual APA site: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games.