Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Initial messages

This article will get afd, most of what has been posted are not reliably sourced, you have no lead, and it just overall, poorly written. 77.97.151.145 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Improve the article! It is certainly notable at this point, and I think getting more help on it would help. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. You have to start somewhere, and given the messy nature of the situation I couldn't write an initial entry which was full-grown as Athena was from the brow of Zeus, so have at it! kencf0618 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP was referring to the previous version of this article, which was nothing but a list of links to Twitter posts and was definitely not a Wikipedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Lots of activity, suddenly. kencf0618 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

RSs

I think that this is probably notable - there are hundreds of articles about this now. Some suggestions:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn

http://www.modvive.com/2014/09/01/gamergate-accountability-problem-sexism-one/

Not a reliable source. No masthead, no visible editorial structure, appears to be open to just about anyone, no widely-known reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/01/the-gamer-is-dead-long-live-the-gamer/

http://www.gamespresso.com/the-reason-gamers-are-angry-with-zoe-quinn/26127

Not a reliable source for derogatory claims about living people; it's been around for less than one year, it has no established reputation for reliability and fact-checking and it offers no evidence that it conducted any independent reporting into the otherwise-anonymous claims about Quinn and her relationships. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Really, I'd suggest finding a whole bunch of sources and going through and looking for the best, least biased sources, as well as trying to find recurring themes. A lot of sources on this suffer from extreme bias, and while it is possible to use biased sources, if we can find unbiased sources, that would be preferable, as they're much easier to use and more reliable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a protean story with a lot of facets. (Narratives about narratives, anyone?) I only put it up because it blew up on my Twitter feed, knowing full well that it'll take time to gel. Quite frankly, I hadn't expected coverage in TIME magazine. kencf0618 (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had been involved with the Zoe Quinn article but hadn't been convinced that it was going to be notable as a thing on its own, but then it blew up and got hundreds of sources and now is far more notable than she is (and TBH I'm not sure if she's really notable, but that's another subject). I probably should have made this a few days ago after the explosion, but was trying to make sure it would stick, but with another 30-odd articles showing up on it, I think we're past the point where we are predicting notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Interesting, too, that the article on her is admin protected, and not the one on Sarkeesian, who had received death threats. Interesting differential. kencf0618 (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically, there were 32 revdels within a very short period of time, and even more edit and reversion wars. The present state of the article is quite poor, and there are some very angry people on the talk page. It wasn't protected for any weird reasons; it was protected because people were getting in fights. The talk page probably doesn't need to be protected, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What needs to be in this article

We need to work on getting this article into shape. As noted, this is a very complicated issue, and there are a LOT of biased sources (as well as a lot of vitriol) being thrown around over this topic.

Background

Zoe Quinn's past incidence of harassment and press, and questions of the legitimacy of the claims and the anger about her which existed prior to this whole thing.

I'm not super familiar with Sarkeesian's past; I know some folks got very upset about her in the past, but I'm not sure how directly related it is. Possibly worth mentioning if there are RSs on it.

Past of anger over the perception of social justice issues being pushed by some journalists and backlash against that.

Past of industry corruption.

Past of harassment of women in gaming.

Zoe Quinn incident

This was sparked by Zoe Quinn's ex's blog post. We need to note what is salient here and not go into the lurid details excessively. Seeing as this is what set the whole thing off, it needs to be noted, and it is impossible to cover this incident without noting what set it off. Please stop trying to delete this; as has been noted, something in multiple RSs is not a violation of BLP, and given that this whole thing is notable, we can't not include this information. We report on scandals involving living people all the time. The third guy mentioned in the ex's blog post does not seem to be a major thing in the RSs (I haven't found any mention of him), so we shouldn't mention him.

Some folks have gotten upset over this and don't understand BLPName. To be clear: BLP DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE USE OF PEOPLE'S NAMES, and we don't NECESSARILY need to delete them from the talk pages if we're dealing with sourced material; whether or not they need to be mentioned in the article should be decided on, and trying to redact all mentions of their names from this page is unhelpful. Please see WP:BLPNAME. However, the names of insignificant individuals may or may not be specifically noted. Grayson and Zoe Quinn's names appear in a large number of articles; Quinn's name 100% needs to be mentioned. Grayson's name probably needs to be mentioned, as he is referenced by a large number of sources and is likely to appear in multiple paragraphs, so his name probably is necessary because otherwise it will be confusingly vague. The owner of Loveshack Entertainment has been mentioned in fewer sources, and thus maybe his name doesn't need to be mentioned; he should be mentioned, but he may or may not need to be named. Her ex's name has been mentioned in some sources as well; not sure if he needs to be mentioned or not by name. If you see someone's name mentioned in a manner which is inappropriate, you should not remove everything, just [REDACT] it; mass reversion is not helpful for moving the article forward. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, we don't. The only thing "scandalous" about this, per the reliable sources, is the widespread harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian.

I insist that you cease reinserting poorly-sourced and unacceptable material removed per WP:BLP and deleted multiple times by administrators. We are not going to mention any accusations that are sourced to barely-read gamerblogs with 76 followers on Twitter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Are Zoe Quinn's other, non-romantic associates worth noting here? Phil Fish seems like the most noteworthy, but might be better in reactions? Who else has been attacked in conjunction with the corruption issue?

Reaction

Harassment of Zoe Quinn.

By far the most notable part of this, as discussed in a wide variety of reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguably was at one point, during the early media blackout when it was mostly social justice types accusing gamers of being bigots, though they weren't mostly very RSs. At this point, GamerGate has more results than Zoe Quinn's harassment on Google News. It is definitely important to note, though the actual reason for it was, as noted, accusations of corruption, though the point of view that it was misogyny obviously needs to be mentioned. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, "media blackout" and "social justice types." Quite.

And no, the harassment of Zoe Quinn and others continues to be the main thread of the reliable sources discussing the issue. [1] [2] [3] etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of several of Zoe Quinn's detractors (John Bain most notably).

Phil Fish's attacks, harassment, and claims of quitting forever again.

Censorship on various sites, which lead to further anger by gamers.

Media blackout in mainstream gaming press, which lead to allegations of corruption and coverup.

Kotaku's response re: Grayson.

Ethics policy changes at gaming websites which resulted from this.

The Guardian writer who ended up quitting after being accused of corruption after writing a piece supporting Quinn while supporting her financially on Patreon?

Accused of corruption by whom and to whom do you attribute the allegation that she quit after this, as opposed to quit due to public harassment as reported in these sources? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It was mentioned on Al-Jezeera, among other places - she herself noted this. It was, as per usual, random people on the internet. And the harassment was precisely due to the accusations of corruption, as she herself noted. Indeed, that's what sparked most of the harassment, and indeed, a great deal of it wasn't really harassment so much as accusations of corruption. The Guardian even edited her article because of the lack of initial disclosure; apparently she originally wanted to disclose it, but apparently The Guardian's editors thought "hey, its about someone getting harassed on the internet, why bother?" Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

FBI looking into online harassment of game devs thing? It happened at the same time, but is reportedly coincidental and unrelated, because it was already being discussed. Still potentially noteworthy?

Social justice/misogyny controversy

There were a bunch of articles about this, but a lot of them are probably not RSs or at least are far from ideal RSs; many of them are terribly biased and it was, fundamentally, a fight on the internet. Probably notable, as it is touched on in some RSs, but I'm not sure how much attention to pay to this issue. Possibly should be integrated with the conflicts between gamers and the press?

Conflicts between gamers and the press

This got a lot of attention, as the gamers basically rebelled against the gaming press while the gaming press insulted them. Honestly this was probably what brought the attention of the mainstream media, so we need to talk about this, but I'm not sure what should be said exactly.

Anita Sarkeesian

Anita was both connected to all this and not, and I'm not sure how to properly integrate her criticism and harassment in with the rest of this. Honestly I'm not super sure what is going on with her thing; I mostly haven't been paying attention to it.

Her death threat may not be real. We lack verifiable sources. --Artman40 (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What else?

What else about this whole thing is notable and noteworthy and has some good RSs for it? What am I missing? Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have redacted unsupported speculative claims about a living person which are inappropriate per WP:BLP. This is a reminder that the policy applies everywhere on the encyclopedia and just because this is a different article than Zoe Quinn does not mean different rules apply. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, the material you are attempting to reinsert has been revdel'd multiple times by administrators from this article and Zoe Quinn on the grounds that it violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy. I suggest to you that if you persist in reinserting it, you may well end up blocked for violating that policy.

We need impeccable reliable sources for derogatory claims about living people, and the ones you have provided are not them, not remotely. Once again, this article is not going to be a place to repeat scurrilous rumormongering and veiled slut-shaming of living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please revisit the WP:BLPNAME policy, as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH. Also note that much of this information has been noted on the Zoe Quinn talk page, and you were told to stop reverting it because it had been sourced. As I noted, I appreciate your interest in the subject, but I will have to seek a ban if you continue to delete stuff which has appeared in multiple RSs or if you continue to attack my motives. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, I haven't been "told to stop reverting it." Feel free to seek a ban, because I think you need to read WP:BOOMERANG and WP:BLP more closely. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. This is black-letter policy and your attempts at converting Wikipedia into a venue to spread debunked rumor-mongering garbage about a living person will not succeed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral, NPOV way of discussing the issue

Here's what we need for an encyclopedic discussion of the issue: GamerGate was predicated upon the initial release of sensitive private and personal information of video game developer Zoe Quinn and her perceived relationship with video game journalists from Kotaku and similar organisations, and subsequently expanded to include the feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, game developer Phil Fish and critique of the pejorative use of the phrase "Social Justice Warrior". Thanks to Koncorde for this great addition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, apologies for the run-on sentences but to be honest I don't really know much about the GamerGate thing until I saw it tagged to the bottom of the Sarkeesian article today so I was typing / cutting / pasting and trying to read up on it at the same time.

I think it really needs a lot of context, and it's possible that a larger / greater article is required regarding misogyny in gaming as video game culture may not be the best place to finally merge this in. Koncorde (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --178.26.106.18 (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC) The controversy is legitimate.

bias

this article is so biased and one sided. i think it should be gotten rid of. 99.253.30.53 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)swami

Please be specific. The article should be improved. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Edit boldly and all that. kencf0618 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

AS it is now, the article doesn't even touch on the facts of its proponents, yet goes into detail on the misogynist accusations

We should have it divided into BOTH sides

We should include on the censorship outcry of proponents as Forbes' Eric Kain summarized it http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

"This perceived radio silence on the part of the press led to early grumblings of ‘censorship’ among gamers crying foul play.

Radio silence wasn’t the only thing encouraging cries of censorship. Moderators on forums at reddit and 4chan deleted posts and comments related to the Quinn controversy. One YouTube commentator, Mundane Matt, had a video on the subject removed after receiving a DMCA takedown notice, apparently issued by Quinn herself. "

And the harassment wasn't only on one side, as he puts it

"The DMCA takedown caused well-known YouTuber TotalBiscuit (John Bain) to comment on the matter on Twitter. And while he maintained a fairly neutral stance, noting clearly that the facts were not all in, he was quickly lashed out against by members of the indie game scene such as Fez developer Phil Fish and others. Fish called TotalBiscuit a “gross nerd” setting the tenor for what snowballed into a much bigger debate."

Keep this neutral people, don't let Wikipedia fall into the censorship, also Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest articles should a mention to this since they're entirely notable because of this200.59.78.239 (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Portals

Torga, I must insist that you cease removing the Feminism portal from this page. It is incontrovertible, from any number of reliable sources, that this controversy involves feminism. You may not remove the portal simply because you don't like it or you disagree with that critique of the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, if you really believe its that important. Note: I did the last revision before i saw this. --Torga (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty important that the article reflect NPOV. I'm not sure why you think it's "neutral" to be in the Video games portal but not neutral to be in the Feminism portal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

There's a typo under "Response". An "Aurbach" where there should be an "Auerbach".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

extremely biased, can be seen as an article pushing an agenda. Needs to represent the other side of the argument with sources.

Until then this article should not be viewable. 59.152.99.3 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this article needs to be semi-protected. Unless people are being abusive, we're fine and can police the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased

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

---

This is heavily biased. GamerGate started after the Zoe Quinn controversy. It's about corrupt journalism in general, but the article can't seem to get that.

I strongly agree with this, there is plenty of information out there even statements of the people involved saying many of the points raised by GamersGate is true, i am shocked that this article is so small, makes me wonder if it was censured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.142.180.79 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's one narrative strand. Flesh out the article, whoever you are. kencf0618 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

While GamerGate grew to encompass broader questions about games journalism, the first use of the hashtag was specifically in reference to Zoe Quinn Monkmunk (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not true at all, Monkmunk (talk). Further, any mentions of Zoe Quinn since the #gamergate hashtag became popular have been related to her alleged nepotism within the industry, not "sexist harassment" as the article states. It also had nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.188.119 (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested in any evidence to the contrary, but my understanding is that, per this topsy analytics page, the first instance of the gamergate hashtag was Adam Baldwin's use of it in a link to both the [redacted] youtube videos. While the second video is a bit broader in scope, the first is very specifically about Zoe Quinn. Monkmunk (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

'According to Erik Kain, writing in Forbes, the GamerGate movement is driven by an anti-feminist backlash against the increasing diversity of voices involved in cultural criticism of video games. "What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant," he said.' This section is clearly biased because the quotation simply doesn't support the claim. It is entirely possible to object to "feminist-driven politicization" of something without being "anti-feminist". Everything about this article is a smear campaign designed to paint people who are sick of a constant stream of articles talking about misogyny etc. in gaming, as misogynist simply because they don't want to hear it. It's Kafkatrapping plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum to that: the rest of the paragraph in the Forbes article actually makes that clear - "I’ve heard from many readers claiming they have no problem with more women and gay people represented in games; they simply don’t want every game to be critiqued based on these factors. I’ve heard from others who readily admit that they miss the days when games were more male-centric. One reader emailed to say that he has no problem with women, but video games were a nice boys club of sorts, a refuge from women where the boys could play for a while undisturbed." Whoever contributed this part of the article is clearly cherry-picking to drive a narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that the "increasing diversity of voices involved in cultural criticism of video games" is largely a sham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Quinn and her family were subsequently targeted by a campaign of harassment,[14][15] as were supporters such as game developer Phil Fish, and internet commentator John Bain.[3][16][17]" This statement is misleading, as it implies that John Bain is a supporter of Quinn; in fact, source 3 explicitly notes that Bain took a neutral stance. Source 17 is also invalid here, as it does not mention any of Quinn, Fish or Bain by name. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Twitter Hashtags

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

---

Why is this notable? Countered (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends. In terms of the game-culture this is the event of the year. 3 weeks and counting where there is a war on the net. Many articles has been written and celebrities have engaged in the topic. --Torga (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or a blog post. Generally there needs to be more than just a hashtag and a few headline titles for to make a topic notable. Countered (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that point. But i am unsure about the deletion to be honest. Over 300.000 tweets in the hashtag, 20 articles, time, forbes, al-jazerra writing about it. At some point these topics would go under a ordinary controversy that is listed on Wikipedia. --Torga (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The GamerGate campaign for gaming is what Watergate was to politics. It exposed the corruption in gaming journalism and attempts at hijacking gaming culture with third-wave feminist propaganda. Even if it's just an Internet thing, the scope of the campaign is enough to make someone uninvolved to stable upon it in the future and wikipedia, due to it's structure, is the only mainstream source that have an ability to provide actual information. That is, unless post-modern feminists decide to raid wikipedia again. It's also a source of information on backlash from Sarkeesian controversy on gaming in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.44.18 (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia page exists for the NotAllMen hashtag. Gamergate is readily demonstrated to be vastly more notable. (Just editing to sign this comment) 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Contested deletion

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

---

This page should not be speedily deleted because... It is a big controversy in the culture of gaming. However the article is biased and not at all neutral. It should stay up, but lots of work in creating this article more balanced should be taken. If not the best option is deletion --Torga (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not an explanation for why it shouldn't be deleted. Nothing about this stub is notable, and that's why it's been nominated for deletion. Countered (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the entire talk page has been lost somehow. I wrote a big long thing about this in the talk page discussing how to improve it. Was the article deleted? Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the original version of this page was deleted last night. I'm going to go through the deletion logs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Figured out what happened; someone flagged it as an attack page for speedy deletion, it got deleted, then got restored because it wasn't one. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Delving into the recent past, from what I can tell it was WP:Admin User:RHaworth who initially deleted my initial attempt, and although he mentions on his archived talk page that he had restored it, I find that this current, highly topical and highly controversial article had been established as a stub by User:Mckaysalisbury, whom I have not dealt with whatsoever. GamerGate_2 had a brief life, but in the interests of transparency, and given its intense interest by assorted parties, it would be best for the provenance of this article to be crystal clear. kencf0618 (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you cannot even remember where you created your version, I don't think you deserve to have it restored. You have at least twice given referred to GamerGate 2 which has never existed. Are you trying to say GamerGate (2) by any chance? NorthBySouthBaranof claims to have merged in your text with this edit. If you really insist and ask me on my talk page, I will restore your edits and merge them into here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably. Not a matter of restoration, but of provenance. Sorry for the difficulty. No need for any merging. kencf0618 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm no experienced wikipedia bumpkin, but I'd say this should be deleted on account of the fact that no actual corroborating evidence was presented to show that Zoe Quinn actually used sex in exchange for publicity or jobs, the entirety of Gamgergate being a twitter event that deflated after some chatlogs were released, and the fact that wikipedia articles typically aren't created for hearsay from ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends (otherwise plenty of celebrity articles would quickly become even more of a mess). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.34.15 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Article Content

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

---

We should probably figure out how this is going to need to be laid out.

Background

Previous instances of corruption/unprofessional behavior in industry.

Previous instances of press and game developers being disrespectful to gamers. The John Romero incident is one notable example.

"Disrespectful"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but the John Romero incident (where they made an ad that said "John Romero is going to make you his bitch" as an advertisement for Daikatana) is pretty infamous. There have been other instances as well of various game developers/journalists saying denigrating things or otherwise being disrespectful of gamers which lead to minor controversies and resentment towards some of said folk. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Past instances of harassment of gaming developers, and possibly Zoe Quinn in specific. Possible mention of controversy over Depression Quest coverage, which made her a target of ire?

Dunno if anything relevant about Anita Sarkeesian fits in here? If so, should be noted.

Anita Arkeesian has very little at all to do with GamerGate. Only real thread is her connection to Silver String Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.165.59.90 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Her harassment (which also happened again before GG) is part of the issues overall. The combined harassment of ZQ and AA (and others) led to the larger press to take interest in this story. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Past instances of alleged misogyny in gaming?

Brewing fight over social justice agitation in gaming press?

Blow-Up

Blog post by ex about Zoe Quinn re: romantic/sexual relationship with Grayson, reporter for Kotaku who had written about her in the past, and gaming developer who went on to hire her. Shouldn't go into excessive detail here, but need to give background as it is vital to understand both the accusations of corruption and nepotism and misogyny; per WP:BLPNAME we should probably avoid naming her ex and possibly the gaming developer. Grayson probably needs to be named due to official response from Kotaku likely appearing later in the article in reference to him. Quinn is too central not to be named.

Once again, we literally don't care about Zoe Quinn's romantic relationships and no mention of them beyond the debunked claims of "quid pro quo" re: Grayson can be countenanced. There are no reliable sources reporting anything remotely resembling allegations of "nepotism." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean other than Forbes, Al Jazeera, Vox, Slate, and Time? Because all of them have made note of these allegations. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. I've read all of those articles and none of them make claims of "nepotism." They make (brief) mention of the debunked allegations about Grayson (Forbes notes "the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire.") NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not reporting on WP:TRUTH. We're reporting on what happened - it doesn't matter whether or not the allegations are true, any more than it matters whether or not the Shooting of Micheal Brown was murder or self defense, because people still rioted and protested because of the perception of racism, claiming that he was murdered by a white cop. Likewise, here, gamers threw around accusations of nepotism and corruption - it doesn't matter if they are true or not, because they still DID so, and ended up being noted in a large number of RSs for their accusations. Likewise, the counter-attacks of charges of misogyny and slut-shaming are not about WP:TRUTH, but about what people did - again, it isn't about whether or not the GamerGate thing is about misogyny or slut-shaming, but because people said that they were and, again, it was noted by numerous RSs. I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble with this. This is reporting on stuff that happened, not whether or not there was actual corruption. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliably-sourced articles make no statements about Zoe Quinn and "nepotism." They discuss the Grayson allegations, and note that those allegations have been debunked. I find no reliable sources discussing anything about Zoe Quinn and a "gaming developer who went on to hire her." Your claim that "gamers threw around accusations" is irrelevant, because we don't include every random accusation ever made about someone by someone on the Internet. If the reliable sources don't see fit to mention them, they have no place in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"The reliably-sourced articles make no statements about Zoe Quinn and "nepotism." Even Jenn Frank admitted that the accusations involve nepotism

this month, Quinn’s ex-boyfriend published intimate details of their relationship online, and her sexual history inexplicably became the centrepiece of a large-scale, industry-wide debate about journalism, nepotism and ethics--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not a statement that Quinn was accused of nepotism, and there is no reliable source stating anything about this alleged game developer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Response

Gamers charging nepotism, corruption and improper relationships on various social media sites and gaming journalism websites.

We need a reliable source to explain what the alleged "corruption" involves. What, exactly, is "corrupt" about the situation - that is, in what manner can any of this be described as fraudulent or dishonest? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of slut-shaming and misogyny being the real cause for claims by social justice folks and some of the gaming press.

Initial media blackout in gaming press, censorship, and accusations of censorship.

Who, exactly, is claiming there was a "media blackout"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The words "media blackout" appear nowhere in the article. The article notes that video game publications don't feel comfortable writing about people's personal lives and relationships - that is not the same as a "media blackout." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the article on media blackout. Yes, the words media blackout were never used in the article; I 100% agree. Instead he noted that they deliberately didn't cover the issue - which is, by definition, a media blackout. As the article on media blackouts notes, they occur for a variety of reasons. I think you are unfamiliar with the term; it does not mean what you think it means. A media blackout is a lack of coverage over a subject, voluntary or otherwise. And, again, I'm trying to note these things as succinctly as possible; this is not proposed text for the article, but proposed things we should talk about content-wise. It was noted by several RSs that the dearth of coverage on the issue by the gaming press, combined with the perception of censorship, lead to the Streisand Effect. The Forbes article even uses that particular phrase. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's your original synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

We may note that Erik Kain in Forbes said video game publications don't feel comfortable writing about people's personal lives and relationships and that some gamers perceived this to be censorship; we may not extend that to claim that there was some sort of orchestrated "media blackout," because that phrase appears nowhere in any reliable source commenting on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The two things are synonyms; that isn't original synthesis, that's how language works, though I'm not proposing we use the term media blackout in the article as noted, save possibly outside of as an accusation by gamers (who perceived the lack of coverage as a media blackout). I made no accusation of an orchestrated media blackout; I'm not sure where you got that from. There are some accusations of it having been orchestrated, but I was not making such accusations. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment, criticism, death threats of Zoe Quinn.

Harassment of commentators on the situation (John Bain was mentioned in several places; not sure if the writer for Brietbart is worth noting, but he also got death threats).

Andrew Breitbart has been dead for two years; not sure how he could get "death threats." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Derp derp. It was a writer for Brietbart.com. Thanks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Phil Fish's involvement be noted here? He did "quit" as a result, but he has done similar things in the past which amounted to nothing; possibly not include until we find out if he actually sold his company per WP:CRYSTALBALL? His harassment may or may not be notable; it was noted briefly in the RSs for a while, but does not seem to be a subject of continued focus; might be better to note that some of Zoe Quinn's supporters were harassed and not name them?

Kotaku response.

Response from game sites which changed their ethics standards in response to controversy.

Gamers vs Press

Fight between the gamers and the press. Not sure what should be noted here; gamers percieved disrespect for the press for speaking down to them and avoiding addressing issues of corruption, vs depicting gamers as misogynists who are clinging to a dying culture? Not sure what the best way of presenting this information is. Was noted in numerous RSs.

Definately the 24 hour window where the articles about the death of gamers. That was the moment it went from a confrontation into war. --Torga (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian

She is tied up in all of this; where does she come in? Her involvement in commentating on women in games, the perception of ignorance and agitation, the harassment and death threats probably all are notable, but how should it be integrated?

Actually Sarkeesian was not a part of it specifically before she released her video in her series on youtube. Before that she was actually not part of the discussion. She was harrased, it got media-attention and fused into the gamergate case. --Torga (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"fused into the gamergate case" - How? Why? On what basis? AFAICT, literally the only connection is that media outlets chose to talk about Anita's claim in the same articles that they talked about Zoe Quinn, in turn simply because it helped further their biased narratives. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that I'm biased towards GamerGate but here goes;

Early on (around the end of August) someone threatened Anita over Twitter with rape and death threats, forcing her to move to a safe location. Although I condemn such an act, there are a lot of details that don't add up;

• The account that threatened her appears to be created solely to threaten her, as it was deleted shortly afterward,
• From what some people say, whenever you report death threats to the FBI, the warn you not to tell about it publicly. Anita did just that,
• The threats had perfect grammar and punctuation, and;
• The threats as a whole happened shortly after Anita released her then-latest video.

Some people claim that Anita or an associate of hers created the account solely to gain sympathy and attract attention.

Included are a couple of pictures regarding the Twitter account. The second one was from 4chan so expect some profanity and Jpeg artifacts.

• Picture 1
• Picture 2

The more recent incident occurred on September 5-6, when some Twitter user had the nerve to tweet child pornography to Anita's account. The account has since been reported, but some pro-Gamergate people claim that the account was made to discredit the movement. Again the account appeared to be a disposable account like before.

Speaking as a pro-Gamergate person, it appears that Anita is trying to stay relevant throughout this whole mess, to little effect. From a neutral perspective, it could easily be a troll with too much time on his/her hands.

Regards, 49.144.172.119 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just briefly, sorry, but the (very poor) arguments that Sarkeesian faked her own harassment are not viable, and don't warrant any coverage. - Bilby (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If these arguments are actually "very poor", then surely you should have no trouble refuting them, seeing as they were just presented to you? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But the arguments that she was harassed for real are not viable as well. --Artman40 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources which support this statement are...? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The same which support the opposite statement. --Artman40 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful. There are a wide range of reliable sources reporting that Sarkeesian was harassed. It is thus verifiable in reliable sources, which is what we require for a point of view to be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking another look at this: you're not even accurately representing the Wikipedia article here, which is why I've found the discussion so frustrating. Direct quotation: "Sarkeesian reported receiving death threats that forced her to temporarily leave her home." (emphasis mine) 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cite those sources, please. Until that your statements have no basis. 188.162.36.140 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's already cited to the BBC, a reliable source, and many others are available. Stop making negative claims about living people without any basis in reliable sources, immediately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. It is a major source but these are again, based on Sarkeesian's tweets which are not reliable. --Artman40 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is meaningless, frankly. The BBC and the various other sources are reliable by our standards; our only prerogative is to accurately represent what they say. Period.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But the sources in question don't support the claim that Sarkeesian was harassed; they only support the claim that Sarkeesian claimed to be harassed. They did no investigation of her claims. Their source is her Twitter feed where she talks about being harassed. So using them in defense of a statement that she objectively was harassed is in fact not accurately representing what they say. Meanwhile, you are writing off the analysis of what little evidence Sarkeesian has herself put forward, with nothing but a flat "it's not reliable" without actually considering the arguments made. Granted, those would probably violate WP:NOR, but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources do support the statement that she was harassed, there is ample evidence that she was harassed and literally nobody in any reliable source is even bothering trying to claim that she wasn't harassed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. The only evidence presented of her being harassed is her word, and people repeating her word. The onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise. As for the lack of "reliable sources" refuting her claims, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not nonsense, and the reliable sources already presented here amply demonstrate it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're still arguing by assertion. I'm asking you to consider the evidence presented by those articles. Can you show me where they do any investigative work whatsoever, or indeed do anything other than cite Sarkeesian's claims on Twitter? I presented an actual argument to you; for you to simply reply back "no, it's not nonsense" is rude and terribly unconvincing. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It literally doesn't matter what you think of the evidence presented by those articles. Those articles are published by reliable sources and meet our verifiability standards. That you do not like the evidence they present, or believe the evidence is insufficient, or fabricated, or whatever is completely non-relevant to Wikipedia's use of those sources. If you wish to present reliable sources which disagree or present another POV, you are free to do so. If you cannot present any reliable sources supporting your POV (and no, Photoshopped screenshots on imgur are not reliable sources) then that POV will not be represented.

I really don't think you understand how Wikipedia works, and I suggest you read the verifiability policy, the NPOV policy and the reliable sources guideline. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My argument is that those articles do not present any evidence whatsoever of the claim they're being used to support. A link to Sarkeesian's claim of being harassed is not evidence of her being harassed; it's evidence of her claiming to be harassed. This has nothing to do with disliking the evidence or considering it insufficient or fabricated. It has to do with it being outright misrepresented, both in the media and here. A reliable source that commits a logical fallacy is not absolved of that fallacy because of being a reliable source.

As for the rest, I could do without the condescension. Also, you're clearly extremely POV in this and it's absolutely insane that you would dare to quote WP:NPOV at me. Your POV is demonstrated by the fact that you're unwilling to consider whether the "reliable sources" this article is relying on even actually say what you think they do.

For just one example: the [reference http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29028236] used to support the quotation "The harassment expanded to include the feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian after the release of the next episode in her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series coincided with the initial allegations towards Quinn" does not mention Quinn in any way, and does not mention #gamergate. To say that the video release "coincided with the initial allegations towards Quinn" is (a) factually incorrect (Sarkeesian's video was published on August 25; Quinn's ex's allegations were published on August 16) and (b) obviously in violation of WP:NOR. A line like this can only be written by someone who is biased towards painting the "gamers" involved as misogynists, by drawing a connection that has not been established in any way, and fraudulently representing a "reliable source" as doing so when it objectively doesn't.

Your belligerence is truly amazing. It's because of editors like you that I haven't registered an account and have thus far declined to donate to any Wikipedia fundraising drives. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The gamers, at least the ones actually doing the harassing, are misogynist. If you're going to approach this article from a those-girls-are-just-making-it-up angle, you're just going to wind up ignored. Tarc (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There has not been any evidence presented that the person who harassed Sarkeesian is a gamer. I am not approaching it from that angle, and you're misrepresenting me here in a way I do not appreciate. I am only saying that (a) the evidence isn't connected to the claim it's being used to support; (b) it's not established that the claim, even if true, is relevant; (c) there is a clear effort here to drive a narrative. But aside from that, to say that questioning these things will lead to being "ignored", only demonstrates your WP:POV. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It has to do with it being outright misrepresented, both in the media and here. If you have a reliable source which says the harassment is being misrepresented in the media, feel free to present it here, and we'll work to include that POV. We can't include POVs that aren't supported by a reliable source.

Do you really think anyone cares that you haven't donated to a Wikipedia fundraising drive? Because nobody does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The BBC article has no mention of GamerGate, so I don't see how it's relevant to the article. Though I realize arguing against anything to do with Anita on Wikipedia is basically pointless Loganmac (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand. At least you were willing to review this. Thank You.49.144.172.119 (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, wasn't sarkessian the one who opened the valve to let in all the third wave feminism and related political agendas into the gaming scene, resulting in the gaming press starting to deviate from the normal gaming news and discussions into more political and social (and personal) opinions, and more recently to start alienating their readership as well as many other members of the gaming community? If anything, I believe she triggered this whole thing by gaining her popularity. She's, as far as I'm aware, not directly connected to GamerGate, but the Quinspiracy might not have had the same weight had she never come into the gaming scene prior to it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Skaruts (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

She is not tied up in this, except by people driving an extremely POV narrative. There are no reliable sources in this article for the claim that Sarkeesian's harassment and death threats have anything to do with #gamergate; there are only citations for the harassment, that are framed as making a link when they don't. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Independent, secondary sources (Which may not be gaming sources but are looking at this objectively from the outside) like the Washington Post have connected Sarkeensen's role as part of GG. We cannot deny that. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

They have editorialized that. Regardless, if you want to make that argument, then cite it. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they are looking from outside in, and see her name coming up alongside Quinn. See [4] [5] [6] (You'll notice that this last one does note Quinn's and Sarkeensian's incidents were two separate ones to start but since have become one). --MASEM (t) 02:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff?

FBI noted that they're looking into harassment of game developers, but allegedly was not in response to this controversy and just was coincidental timing. Should this be noted in the article? Possibly in the background section, because while it isn't directly related, might tie into past history of harassment of game developers?

The Guardian writer who ended up resigning after being attacked for writing a very pro-Zoe Quinn article while financially supporting for her via Patreon, as well as The Guardian's own response that they were the ones who cut a notice of disclosure because they hadn't felt it was relevant? Problem: Several of the sources involved with this ended up editing their articles after The Guardian edited their article to reflect that she had originally included a disclosure notice. Speaks well of their journalistic integrity, but makes it hard to source from the original sources which caused the whole thing. :(

What else? I've seen some other stuff mentioned, but I'm not sure how much of it is really notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is a developing news event and should not be any more than a rough paraphrase of the Vox article, which spells out the whole ordeal neutrally and with due weight. If there are spots that need clarification from there, they can go up for discussion, but otherwise I think we'll start having BLP issues. @NorthBySouthBaranof, your edit overwrote mine—please be careful when previewing edit conflicts.  czar ♔ 22:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was about to put in stuff about the FBI, but that leads me to a path that we need to start with events from roughly this time last year, eg: [7],[8], which is about when the IDGA recognized there was harassment in the industry and were taking steps to try to help developers cope. The events happening now are a culmination of that. As thus, the FBI and the IDGA met in July this year [9],[10] - prior to all the happenings with Quinn now - to also provide support. Given that this is trending to be more than just about Quinn but the relation between players and developers, I think this BG will be necessary but it feels awkward to have presently in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How about a 'reception' section?. It's clear the media has focused on one of the narratives, and that's important to notice: the dialogue of ethics is apparently less interesting for the media than harassment of women (and it probably is, but that's beyond the goal of the article). In fact, many of the sources we have don't even deal with the ethics dialogue. If we are to proportionally show every side of the story, we need to address how disproportionate the sources are?. I don't really know how to word it encyclopedia-wise but it could be a way to address the whole 'gamergate is about misogyny', while the gamergate folk are discussing something completely unrelated. After all wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't need to talk in the same extension about the misogyny dialogue. 88.27.100.236 (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC

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

Finding Sources

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

---

There are a lot of sources on this, but many of them are very biased. While using biased sources is possible, it is not preferable, especially when we're discussing factual information (reaction of gamers, public harassment, ect.).

Some potential sources:

Bright Side of News - They had one of the best earlier reports on the issue. Pretty neutral, lots of citations of sources, looks like a pretty good article overall.

Vox has a more recent overview of the whole thing; seems like another pretty good source, pretty neutral.

Al Jazeera reported on it and even updated the article after the fact, which speaks well to their journalistic integrity and fact-checking. Originally noted the issue with the writer from The Guardian who was accused of corruption/improper ties to Zoe Quinn. Not sure if there is an archived version available anywhere of the original version.

Forbes discusses the scandal and the Striesand Effect, the Fine Young Capitalists, Phil Fish, and a lot of other things. Pretty broad overview, potentially lots of useful info, big name site.

What Culture had a "10 things you need to know about the #GamerGate Scandal" article which contains an overview of the whole thing.

Business Insider has two articles - Covers some of the reaction and back and forthing between the gaming press and gamers, as well as an overview of the situation.

Cinemablend talks about some of the issues involved with accusations of using claims of misogyny as a cover for discussion of integrity, but I'm not super fond of reporting on Twitter hashtags.

New Media Rockstars mentioned it early on, not sure if they're a great source, but it has links to original material and an overview.

Time magazine wrote something about the conflict between gamers and the gaming journalists.

The Guardian has some coverage of this as well; it was actually their second article.

The first Guardian article is something I'm not sure if we should cite the first or not; the conflict of interest issue there is problematic, but it could possibly be used as a cite for the claims of misogyny? Seems appropriate seeing as the person ended up getting mobbed and quitting as a result.

Kotaku changing their policy re: disclosure and support of game devs via Patreon.

Daily Dot has some info from early on about the thing.

Gamezone talks about the larger cultural context a bit.

Slate wrote about the death of gaming journalism and the fight between gamers and journalists, and the rise of bloggers.

Bustle

The Daily Beast: 1, 2

The Raw Story

The Independent

The Mary Sue

Recode

The Week

Paste There are a TON of sources, and there are many more I didn't mention, but which are potentially useful by the looks of things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A few more:

Town hall has an article discussing the whole sociopolitical position pushing.

Cinema Blend has another article about the source of some of these things, as well as contesting its depiction as misogynistic in nature. Interestingly, it notes that the hashtag started with Adam Baldwin, which I've since found several other sources repeating and, looking on Twitter, it appears to be the case. This speaks very poorly of the fact checking on all the stories which claimed that the hash-tag originated with 4Chan. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This one source does not override all of the other sources; we may note both statements and allow readers to decide which is correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to review WP:RS. If a source is doing a poor job of fact-checking, then it is not very reliable by definition. If we can verify that one source is right and another is wrong, then we go with the one which can be verified as a statement of fact. We might report what the other source falsely claims if the claims are notable, which it probably is - Zoe Quinn's response that it is all secretly a misogynistic conspiracy theory run by 4chan has been noted in numerous sources, though a large number have pointed out that it is simply untrue. The conspiracy theories of Zoe Quinn and some of the gamers are probably worth noting in a line or two, but we shouldn't present them as fact, merely as what the factions are claiming. However, my point re: the hashtag is less its notability in and of itself but rather that it is something which can be empirically verified and which has been misreported on in several sources, suggesting that said sources may not be reliable - if we can find something which is both easy to verify and wrong in their articles, it suggests that they aren't doing a very good job on fact-checking and thus probably are not reliable and thus should not be used. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Boolean logic; the NPOV policy requires us to weight viewpoints based on their preponderance in reliable sources. As our Verifiability policy states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You're missing my point; the point is that if an article is poorly fact-checked, then it isn't a reliable source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And your evidence that the article is poorly fact-checked is...? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Arstechnica has also updated their article (see update section at the very bottom) to correct the fact that Adamn Baldwin has indeed started the hashtag #gamergate, this is easily verifieable with twitter analyzation tools such as topsy (also cited in the article), as such I do believe that this speaks very much for the fact that the articles Titanium Dragon has mentionend are poorly fact-checked, because the process of checking this fact is so exceedingly simple but nontheless was not performed nor the articles updated/corrected. As such the concern that these articles fail to qualify as reliable is very valid and I'd disencourage to use them. Perhaps it should be included in the wikipedia article that Adam Baldwin started the tag since this seems to be a common point of conflict when it's really a non-issue since it's easily verifiable 85.127.126.46 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Two things: first, the fact ars went back and noted they corrected the article is the type of editorial evaluation we expect from reliable sources - yes, they may have published a mistaken fact but they actually addressed it and fixed, so they are still reliable. Second, when this article is rewrite, we're not going to have alot of specific accusations - as otherwise people will argue one side was wrong over the other and vice versa (eg why Baldwin's tweet may have been the first true #gamergate tag, the question that others have raised is if it was a tweet that one side pushed Baldwin to include - I'm not saying who is right or wrong, but there's a rabbit trail if you follow the accusations that's far too much potential for bias and problems in the future to go into detail); for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter the source of Gamergate's name or tag, but that it is the term used to define the issue. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I may have worded this badly, when I was talking about unreliable source I was referring to the articles that Titanium Dragon was talking about, the correction on Arstechnica puts it into the reliable category regarding this fact. However, please do correct me if I'm wrong, the credibility of a source should take precedence over presenting weighted viewpoints according to the the NPOV policy just based on the fact that no matter what input a source provides it's not relevant for wikipedia when said source has no credibility, which easily checked facts, that aren't checked in the first place nor corrected after weeks, attest to. Simply said editors should rather consider citing/using articles that got this fact straight or have been updated to correct this inaccuracy, over the ones that still have this error after weeks85.127.126.46 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this would be true. When we work on rewriting this, we're going to be focusing more on fact, using sources that try to present the most accurate representation of all the issues that are in place. I've think we've got a lot of good sources now that will help to present the fair arguments from those supporting the GamerGate side (eg the transparency issues, etc.) But I do want to stress that we should not be building this too much up as a timeline of details but focus on the larger picture; the less we specifically get involved in the nitty-gritty of events, the more biased picture we can present and less likely to be challenged in the future. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

adding one more (probably one of the first "gamesites" to address the issue though it seems they edited it since then: http://gamesnosh.com/zoe-quinn-scandal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.142.180.79 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable reliable source. See our guideline on reliable sources for help in how to identify reliable sources. Specifically, this blog has no identifiable editorial structure, no established history of editorial reliability and it appears to have been on the Internet for barely a month. It is a self-published source, which is not acceptable for any issue related to claims about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Rock Paper Shotgun addresses the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A few more sources:

Digitimes has another rundown of the whole thing in chronological order, and concerns about it impacting console sales and thus, manufacturing jobs in Taiwan.

Comics Gaming Magazine covers the issue, again in rough chronological order and talking about the various stages of the whole mess and controversy.

Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes is being discussed below. CGM has specifically been found to be unreliable by WPVG. Woodroar (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion, I'm not really sure if they came to the right conclusion, given that some of the reasoning contradicts WP:RS. I might have to bring that up again; they are, apparently, an actual magazine, and by the metric of not allowing things with submitted articles, we wouldn't consider The New Yorker to be a RS (of course, maybe I'm wrong; DO we consider the New Yorker to be a RS?). I think more troubling is the idea that the video game press has anything really notable for being reliable and doing good fact checking, given that this entire controversy is partially over exactly that. I mean, even Wikipedia classifies Kotaku as a gaming blog site. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I might not be opposed to using it as a valid opinion piece; once again we run into the same issue that the piece is pretty much just giving the author's opinion about the whole mess rather than actually attempting to ascertain any facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

APGNation did an interview of The Fine Young Capitalists regarding that whole issue with Zoe Quinn. Not sure how useful it is, but it has some potential use for sourcing claims made by them re: Zoe Quinn and them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The New Yorker - Takes the stance that it is all misogyny, is primarily sourced via Zoe Quinn, but does make note of the GamerGate sorts claims that it is about journalistic ethics and integrity as well.

Marketplace - Broadly discusses bullying, but has almost no specifics at all. Is mostly just an interview with Jennifer Hale about bullying in the video game community. Not sure how useful it is.

Uh, no, it's specifically and directly about the current controversy. "It seemed like an allegation of journalistic misconduct, but what followed was a flood of threats aimed at Zoe Quinn online." Very useful for demonstrating what was actually going on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph did an interview with Zoe Quinn, who claimed that it was all misogynistic attacks on her; article also interviewed (much more briefly) a few GamerGate folks, who noted that they were angry at Zoe Quinn because of unethical behavior, and that their concern was journalistic integrity and ethics in the industry. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What Culture ran another piece on it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Brietbart is a very biased site and doesn't have the best reputation in the world for fact-checking. It might be useful for documenting opinions, but it isn't a great place to source factual statements. I wouldn't use it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon and NorthBySouthBaranof: I find it hard to believe that we're claiming that Brietbart is "very biased" yet we consider Mary Sue, New Yorker, and TheWeek as "good" sources despite their obvious slant and editorial nature. Let's not get our political views involved in choosing NPOV sources especially if the source in question has written a well detailed article that's on par with our other sources. Brainplay (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Brainplay: Oh, I agree; I believe I noted this elsewhere on the page. A lot of sources on this are biased, and many aren't very well fact-checked. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another point to remember to include is how some journalist websites changed policies to prevent reporters from participating in things like Paetrons/etc. following the initial claims [11]. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cinema Blend has hit the high points of the above apgnation interview with TFYC, so we have a reliable source now on that side. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Paste notes Phil Fish calling Zoe Quinn's attackers rapists and notes his aggressive behavior. Crowdfund Insider talks about the hacking of The Fine Young Capitalists. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Are French sources allowed? lemonde.fr writes about the points Sommers made in her video. Edit: at the bottom the "shutout" from wikileaks seems also mentioned 20:42, 17.09.14 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.142.180.79 (talk) --Addon to the source the Wikileaks "shoutout" is also mentioned at the bottom 20:53 17.09.14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.142.180.79 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Getting sources from overseas news sites is actually very valuable because they are likely to represent a very different viewpoint on the issue, and tend to be more detached from things which are happening elsewhere. We can use sources from anywhere, so long as they are reliable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/what-gamergate-make-men-angry-4275274

Background Sources

I think we should also find sources to talk about the background of some of the players involved here. Might be wise to gather some references on the background of hostility between gamers and the gaming press and gaming developers, past instances of misogyny in the industry, past instances of media corruption.

The Verge and a number of other sources documented the last time Phil Fish got in a fight on the internet when he supposedly cancelled Fez 2 after yelling at gamers online; a number of articles came out around that time noting his angry attacks on people. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

So biased

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

---

I'm done with Wikipedia, this article looks like written by Zoe Quinn herself. If someone wanted to know what it was about, the only thing about what the proponents is "whose proponents state centers on the ethics of video game journalism" THAT'S IT

Then it goes about Phil Fish being doxxed, that Anita Sarkeesian made a video on Tropes vs. Women and stuff that has nothing to do with the matter. It cites TotalBiscuit but doesn't say what his opinion is.

I hope you guys are proud for killing Wikipedia. Everyone agrees that BOTH sides of the story should be in, this is ridiculous200.59.78.239 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now, we're not including opinions, we're including facts - and the personal impact on Fish and Sarkeesian are both sourcable to the overall issue. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that there's heavy criticism of claims of harassment. While both Anite and Zoe claim to be harassed, and many articles cite it as a fact, the amount of harassing messages seems to be completely overhyped. There's not really any way to source the number exactly. What's the criteria for calling something harassment? Is one angry tweet enough, or does there need to be an organized campaign? Right now it's somewhere in-between. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When secondary sources, reading what they can from forum posts and twitter feeds, and the like, call something "harassment". To what degree, yes, we can't say, but it's completely fair to say that both women have been harassed online in a public manner, as reported by reliable secondary sources like the Guardian. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

One issue is that the harassment was not one way, which is not really presented in the article; Zoe Quinn's supporters harassed John Bain, for instance, for speaking out against censorship, and sent a Breitbart.com reporter death threats. Also, I'm still somewhat hesitant about the bit about Phil Fish, as it doesn't really present what happened in context - Phil Fish called the people who were angry at Zoe Quinn a bunch of rapists, so it was less harassment and more a flame war which escalated to doxxing. Zoe Quinn herself has a record of open aggression on the internet. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article also does not make note of what happened to The Fine Young Capitalists, which got mentioned in a number of reliable sources and resulted in a member resigning from doing PR from them due to the aggression from the SJW camp. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article essentially avoids talking at all about the "Gamers are dead" articles, TFYC's accusations, the Escapist's policy changes,Kotaku's advertisers pulling out, any claims of harassment against the Gamer Gate folks, anything about the #GamerGate or #Notyourshield hashtags.

It also ignores the Forbes articles and Al-Jazeera, fails to sufficiently discuss the Slate article, and makes no mention of the Escapist's articles regarding the subject.

All of these are verifiable facts which should be discussed, but have been avoided due to (what appears to be) severe editorial bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodamnfat (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Deleting information that tries to balance this article.

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

---

This is the fourth time someone deletes information that can give another perspective on Gamergate that actually can make this article more neutral. --Torga (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Some understanding of basic Wikipedia procedures is required to edit articles. Your source (now removed) includes the obvious "It is important to note that anyone can create an account on 4Chan and state nearly anything" so their account of a named living person is not suitable for use. That highlights the reason this article should be deleted—it's just he-said-she-said gossip where nothing has actually happened. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has happened? News sites like Kotaku had to basically make public announcements and supposedly crack down regarding the whole controversy. Citation Needed | Citation Needed 12:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Johnuniq is specifically talking about Quinn reporting to have all these logs, and 4chan responding to that. In the essence of WP, we can't say anything beside "this side claims this", "that side claims that". One edit removed was the claim that 4chan "debunked" Quinn's logs, which is not 1) factually reported by third parties and 2) is a biased statement as only a third-party is going to be able to make that assessment, as well as whether Quinn's logs actually are valid and show what she claims. In that sense, at the current time on that specific issue, "nothing has happened". --MASEM (t) 13:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that it is noteworthy independent of Zoe Quinn's general claims that it is all a misogynistic crusade against her. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But there have been third party sources that reported on the debunking of the allegations/IRC logs provided by Zoe Quinn. One such instance is the article from the Escapist 85.127.26.20 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That article does not dubunk her claims, but does point out, from the 4chan side, she's picking and choosing what cross-section of logs to share and that obviously will skew the picture ; but that's a tactic anyone defending themselves (irregardless if the are the "right" side) will do, pick the most problematic and hide the ones that don't help their case. However I do want to thank you for bringing that article to our attention as it seems to me to be the first RS that has actually spoken to the 4chan side to get some insight, and has a choice quote directly out of a 4chan'ers keyboard, "less clickbation sensationalism, a step up in terms of journalistic integrity and transparency of their reporting" in describing their goals, that we can include to balance the neutrality of this article. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not terribly versed in the guidelines of wikipedia, as such I tend to only bring sources to consider for real contributors. I was not suggesting that this article debunk her claims partly or even entirely, since this mess is pretty much a big he-said, she-said thing. But rather it's the most direct/official direct response coming from the 4chan side regarding the claims of ZQ and was reported by source that should be useable by wikipedia, glad I could be of help. However there are some erouneus facts in the claims of Zoe Quinn that concern the origin of the IRC Logs, no source seems to explicitly have mentionend this therefore I'm unsure if it can be used in the wikipedia article. Some of the screenshots/Logs that Zoe has used for her accusations did not come from the IRC channel "#burgersandfries @rizon" that is used by 4chan, this can be verified by looking at her tweets/screenshots and is also apparant from many sources that have picked up the story. As of now it's unsure who used the other channel. 85.127.26.20 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why the language we're using now is "ZQ reportedly has IRC logs...", we are in no position to say her logs are right, just as we can't say 4chan's side has proven them false, but we do know she's brought these up and 4chan says they aren't a full picture - he said, she said, as noted. We just are careful with the wording (and yes, this Escapist article provides a better source to say what 4chan users have said). --MASEM (t) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Too much one-sided

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

---

Currently the article is one-sided. It focuses mostly on claims of harassment, without going into detail what the nature of controversy was. Even left leaning newspaper like The Guardian, despite its defence of attempt influence gaming in line with their ideology, admitted that there are legitimate concerns regarding gaming journalism and ethics which were raised during this controversy, and this should be reflected in the article. There are more sources with more explanation like Al Jazeera that should be used as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There's probably even more than just the journalism ethics - it's this long-running sense of entitlement that some fans have towards developers that has been an issue since last year; this is just the culmination of current events. However, we don't have any good sources that connect all these chains together, yet. (This [12] is close, but not quite). --MASEM (t) 15:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"sense of entitlement that some fans have towards developed"-Oh dear, I believe the word is "consumers". Who demand a good product they are paying for. Now of course, some see or want to use games as tool of political engineering(see for example the paper "The New Laboratory of Dreams: Roleplaying Games as Resistance in Women's Studies Quarterly" where the author openly admits that games should be used for politically engineering players to accept certain views), but this is whole different story and not something to discuss here as this is not a forum.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to like, every cultural thing ever. Video games are now mainstream. They're going to be culturally critiqued. If you don't think games have been used to politically engineer players before, you've never played Call of Duty: Modern Warfare - the whole series is basically pro-war, pro-American propaganda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems you have a very serious POV if you use words like these. As for me, having grown up under communist regime, I have seen enough games that were meant to "politically" educate" than entertain. There is a reason why people abolished that system.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Video games stopped being about just entertainment, oh, about the time the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium was established. Which would be 1973. The first video games I ever played (Oregon Trail, Carmen Sandiego, Number Munchers, etc.) were defining examples of applying the art of video games to educate an audience. And they were massively successful at the time.

Video games are no different from any other art and entertainment form - they are subject to cultural criticism (in the sense of commentary, deconstruction, critique and analysis) from both within and without its community. As video games become increasingly popular and, yes, increasingly mainstream, it should be no surprise that they will increasingly be commented upon, deconstructed and analyzed. The ideologies and preconceptions of individual games and genres will be debated and dissected. That's what happens in culture.

The idea that video game simulations of war could be construed or overtly designed as political propaganda is hardly a novel or fringe idea. See [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When people issue death threats because a dev decides to rebalance a weapon in a game, that's entitlement. And it's not consumers, its fans - the vocal minority - that are the problem. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is biased because the sources are biased. I hate the way the article is written too, but it just goes to show how one-sided video games journalistsm is. You have some sources like Townhall, Slate, and The Escapist who are acknowledging Gamergate's issues, and the Forbes articles have been balanced fairly.72.89.93.110 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When you have one side that primarily only presents their opinion on forums, twitter, and other self-published sources, it is very hard to present a 100% balanced coverage. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizng Wikipedia's policies. It shows why gamers are frustrated, when they feel like they don't have a voice. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't had the privilege of being born into a wealthy first world country where I would enjoy such games. However the discussion doesn't bring us to closer to resolving the issue here-overwhelming dominance of criticism in the article of people investigating the controversy and allegations of harassment. For neutrality purposes both sides should be represented and reasons for controversy explained. Let's not dilute the subject by off topic discussions.

While the discussion is interesting oesn't bring us to closer to resolving the issue here-overwhelming dominance of critical sources without explaining in detail the nature of controversy(details of which are covered by reliable sources like Al Jazeera).Let's focus on this.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Examples of corrupt reviews?

If we are going to say this is about corrupt reviews, shouldn't we link to some that are demonstrably corrupt? And if we don't have any of those shouldn't we be throwing "allegedly" in front of that claim? 67.170.87.35 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a BLP issue in that the review would identify whom the accusation that Quinn had encounters with, and we would not allow that. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a BLP issue to identify Grayson, given the Kotaku article; but more to the point, there isn't actually any review that he wrote, because that allegation is demonstrably false. He never wrote a review of Quinn's game. He wrote something about a game jam that Quinn was involved in, before the relationship began and did not write anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship. [18] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I forget that Kotaku did clear the air on that. So yes, not a BLP to mention Grayson, but we do have to be careful on the wording. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: it is not a BLP violation to name names which are found in reliable sources. What we try to do is avoid naming names which don't add to the article. See WP:BLPNAME. That is to say, we don't name her ex, or the game dev who hired her after their relationship, because that isn't especially important to understanding what happened. We name Quinn and Grayson because it is necessary to understanding the article. Note that just because something reflects poorly on someone does not mean it is a BLP violation, but the name needs to be notable and important to understanding what happened. As most of these people aren't notable in and of themselves, they don't need to be mentioned because adding their names does little to add to the story. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, we literally don't care that a game dev hired her after their relationship. That is literally none of the public's business even if it happened and the fact that not a single reliable source is discussing it should be a clue that it's not suitable for Wikipedia either.

The reliable sources are discussing the allegations of a journalistic conflict of interest, because that's a matter of clear public interest and the allegations did deserve a fair investigation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple RSs have noted it, actually. It is potentially relevant because it was part of what set off the whole thing. It has not been focused on as much as the Grayson thing, so should not be given undue coverage, but that it involved a male game developer has been given mention in a very large number of sources, with a few of them going into depth about the issues of conflict of interest it raised, as well as the general ethical issues attached to such. However, the idea that it is "none of the public's business" is wholly irrelevant; we report what appears in RSs. What you personally believe to be the public's business is irrelevant, and given that some segments of the public feel that it IS their business, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Part of the cost of being a "celebrity"; your affairs suddenly become of public interest. I mean, I guess you could say that Quinn isn't really notable independent of all this, which is fair enough, but... well, this whole mess is pretty big in terms of coverage. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep claiming that "reliable sources" have discussed it, and yet you have provided not a single example of an actual reliable source which discusses it. Please link them here.

Hiring someone you know at a private business does not constitute a "conflict of interest" and it literally happens tens of thousands of times every day. It's called business networking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Most workplaces would fire you immediately if they found out that you slept with someone immediately prior to hiring them, and would most likely terminate them as well. Indeed, many workplaces bar or frown upon workplace relationships, especially between supervisors and their subordinates, as they inherently present a conflict of interest. He is very lucky he is self-employed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, "he is self-employed" would be precisely the point. He owns the business and he can hire whoever he damn well pleases. There is no "conflict of interest" because the business owner holds both interests. Which is likely why... no reliable sources have commented on the matter, which means this is moot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's media, or journalism, there's another interested party: the public. Which is, from what I gather, the narrative the people behind gamergate push. That is, the kind of corruption denounced is of the soft kind (you scratch my back, I scratch your back), and the conflict is the lack of disclosure or transparency, which translates into distrust. Not sure the examples you are bringing align with what gamergate thinks (their 'movement' is hardly comprehensible), but the possible or alleged conflict of interest seems pretty much the core of it.83.53.151.86 (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct, which is why the allegations about Quinn's relationship with Grayson were notable and have been discussed in reliable sources. The apparent allegations about Quinn's relationship with some developer, on the other hand, have not been viewed as notable or of public interest, and hence do not appear in any reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Source issues, undue weight

1. Opinion articles are not the best sources for stuff, especially not for factual information. Several things are quoted to push a specific POV here; we need to avoid that, and these are people's opinions. Worse still, they're actually verifiable as incorrect in some cases, and thus are not particularly reliable because of poor fact checking.

Yes, such as the claims that there was any violation of journalistic ethics involved with Quinn's relationship - that is verifiable as incorrect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Zoe Quinn and others claiming it is all a big conspiracy against them is probably noteworthy, but we should not give WP:UNDUE weight to their claims of a conspiracy theory.
2. Same applies to gamers claiming that Zoe Quinn and the SJWs are part of a conspiracy - noteworthy and notable, but we shouldn't present it as if it is true, nor lend it WP:UNDUE weight either.
   1. Same applies to "Zoe Quinn and others" dismissing concrete connections made by pro-gamergate people as "conspiracy theory", in cases where the claims made are not nearly so broad. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. We need to note that harassment has been going both ways - The Fine Young Capitalists were attacked and doxxed as well, John Bain was attacked, and both were done by Zoe Quinn's faction. Should be noted as it was noted in several RSs. As-is, the article implies it was one way. Indeed, part of the reason that Phil Fish was attacked was because he called people who were complaining rapists, and Zoe Quinn herself has been involved in the harassment of others.
4. We need to avoid too much "back and forthing". It is going to be somewhat inevitable, but we should try and avoid it in excess. We should present what happened, not try and counter things immediately; I think breaking out things into separate paragraphs would probably help with this. Have a paragraph which describes the gaming community reaction to the issue. Have a paragraph which describes the gaming press reaction. Have a section describing Zoe Quinn and her companions' reactions. Chronological/topical ordering will probably help with this. The article should flow naturally, not read like a bunch of people sniping at each other on the internet - we're talking about people doing that, we aren't doing it ourselves. This is Wikipedia, after all.
5. The article is weasely in the accusations against Zoe Quinn. Given that they are sourced in literally dozens of RSs at this point, and given that there is no REASON to be weaselly about them, what it should be needs to be made clear - it was an angry post by her ex presenting evidence that she cheated on him with Grayson, a reporter for Kotaku (and formerly Rock Paper Shotgun), as well as other gaming industry figures. That is PRECISELY what it is, and it gives the reader the full context. "alleged a level of impropriety" is just garbage, and the whole passage is terribly written. Given that this was the flashpoint, and given that the focus is on two different aspects of this - the SJWs claiming that it was pure misogyny because it disclosed that she cheated on him (i.e. slut shaming by an ex), while the gaming community was upset about the who she was cheating with (i.e. conflict of interest, nepotism, and pay for play) - it is important that we present this factually and not weasel about what it was. It is vital to understanding the whole controversy.

The accusations about Zoe Quinn are as described in the reliable sources.

We don't care about who "cheated" with whom - there's no marriage involved here and thus any claim about their relationship status is necessarily hearsay. A non-public-figure's personal relationships are not of the public interest except insofar as it involves matters of public interest - such as journalistic ethics.

There, a multitude of reliable sources describe the allegations of ethical violations as unfounded because the writer in question never reviewed Quinn's work and wrote nothing about her work after beginning the relationship. [19] [20] [21] [22] etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. First off, this is not a court of law. Secondly, it isn't "hearsay" - there is actual, physical evidence. Indeed, no source questions that he was her boyfriend - every source that mentions it mentions that he was her ex. That is simply not in contention at all. Really, no one has questioned the actual events he described at all, precisely because he outlined them quite clearly - the contention is pretty much entirely over their meaning. We aren't reporting on all the allegations because most of them aren't notable, not because they're not true. Thirdly, Zoe Quinn has attempted to make herself a public figure, who is at this point mostly internet famous for this. She certainly isn't notable for her game. Fourth, we determine the "public interest" via significant coverage in reliable sources - that's what notability is all about. Your odd claims about "what we care about" are simply false - we report about all sorts of stupid sex scandals on Wikipedia which were nothing BUT sex scandals, because they were noteworthy. You have grown enraged when I pointed out Monica Lewinsky and the Princess Diana/Prince Charles stuff, but they were just sex scandals and the latter one was absolutely nothing BUT a sex scandal, as there was no interest save for the fact that the people in question were famous.

There are indeed reliable sources which claim that they were unfounded. There are other reliable sources which have claimed otherwise, because they were (supposedly) friends beforehand, and the issue is game developers being too chummy with journalists, and using them to promote their agenda. Kotaku defended him, and that should definitely be made note of, but the idea that they were "unfounded" just because Kotaku claimed that they totally didn't do anything wrong, really, so stopped complaining doesn't mean that they were "unfounded". Doubly so given that they then changed their code of ethics for their employees. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your attempt to compare Zoe Quinn to Monica Lewinsky or Princess Diana here is as ridiculous as it was on the talk page for her biographical article. I won't belabor the point, because it's obvious that there really isn't a comparison in any way, shape or form. This article isn't about Zoe Quinn's sex life and the same BLP rules apply here as apply in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You continually take offense at my pointing out that you are simply incorrect by citing articles which are about precisely the events you claim which we do not cover. You continually cite BLP without reading BLP, which notes that if stuff is important to understand what is going on (and it is, seeing as the whole claims of "it is all misogyny" center around it, as do the claims of inappropriate relationships with journalists) and it is reliably sourced (and it is), in it goes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1. We have tons of sources; we shouldn't need to cite biased ones. Several of the sources currently referenced suffer from pretty severe bias. It isn't impossible to use biased sources, but if we have a choice, it would be better to use unbiased ones over biased ones. Biased sources are less likely to be reliable, and we've already had at least one instance where an originally undisclosed conflict of interest in a biased article resulted in a journalist quitting after they got flak over it.

Every source has a potential bias; the CinemaBlend article that you promote above literally wears its point of view on its sleeve. That doesn't render it unfit for use; it simply means we must cite its statements and attribute its opinions. You can't possibly be claiming that the Time article is somehow unacceptably biased while the CinemaBlend article is somehow perfectly balanced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course every source has a potential bias; all sources have this issue. That's not what I'm getting at. Some sources are more neutral than others, and then there are sources which, well, are like Paste, which outright states as fact that the people behind it are a bunch of misogynistic trolls. That ain't exactly what I'd use as a go-to reliable source on an article about a controversial subject. Would you suggest using an article which described the people protesting the shooting of Michael Brown as a bunch of jungle monkeys as a reliable source? I'd hope not. Same thing, more or less. Do you think using Breitbart as a source for this article would be a good idea? I mean, maybe we could use it to present what they had to say (and the guy ended up getting death threats for the article), but I'd prefer not to use it as a RS for anything factual because they're a severely biased source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The CinemaBlend article outright states as fact that all of the mainstream media reports on the issue are false and biased. Please explain how this is "neutral" while Paste is not.

We don't use Breitbart because that website has a long history of factual inaccuracy, partisan bias and outright falsification of facts. There exists a consensus on Wikipedia that it is unacceptable as a source for anything related to living people. There is no such consensus that Paste is unacceptable. Therefore, yes, we can use Paste but not Breitbart. If you wish to challenge either of these consensuses, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a place to open discussions on the suitability of disputed sources.

Wikipedia weights points of view based on their prevalence in reliable sources. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

This means that if a majority of reliable sources express the viewpoint that GamerGate is largely driven by misogynistic views... then yes, we are required to make that viewpoint the most prominent one. Wikipedia is not a place to right perceived wrongs in mainstream media coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We can only use a given source if it is reliable on a given subject; we rely on The New York Times for world events, but we rely on scientific papers for subjects such as global warming, even though they are frequently in the news. Paste Magazine itself notes that it doesn't really fancy itself much on the subject, and the bias in the article is pretty clear, seeing as it is proposing a bizarre conspiracy theory. I'm not terribly familiar with Paste in general; looking over the site as a whole, it seems to have a bunch of lists and light entertainment news. Pretty much all "reliable sources" have variable levels of reliability depending on the subject matter and the specifics of the content; we use the Wall Street Journal for some business reporting, and they have a very good reputation for some kinds of reporting, but we don't rely on their op-ed section to tell us about Obama's latest tax policy. There are sections of the NYT we'd never cite for anything other than self-citing, and there are others which are great.

Incidentally, re: the article in Time: do you know who Leigh Alexander, the person who wrote that article, is? Leigh Alexander writes for a bunch of these folks - including Kotaku, one of the companies which has been accused of being unprofessional - as well as does PR for game developers. On the one hand, a lot of game journalists write for a bunch of places. On the other hand, well, what is she going to do - say that the people who pay her are totally corrupt, and that what they're doing is wrong? A conflict of interest is one of the things we look out for when we're looking for reliable sources. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1. This article seems biased to me due to the bulk of the sources presenting only one side of the whole story. Since GamerGate is mostly a debate between many "public" video game journalists and anonymous internet users, the bias towards one side of the argument is predictable. I don't know of the proper way to fix this issue, Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources are usually a good thing to ensure high quality. But in this case it is only causing one voice, that of anonymous posters to be completely ignored in favor of well connected video game journalists, who anonymous claim to be corrupt in the first place. This is my first time editing so I am sorry if I mess up on the proper format. Inuyasha8888 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Inuyasha8888: We have had this issue you describe with most "scandals" regarding video games, which are typically covered in a homogeneous way by the press, which are limited by commercial concerns and thus tend to adopt quite risk-free approaches. I believe the solution may involve accepting as reliable sources the opinions of self-published experts, in order to expand the variety of opinions and significant viewpoints from what the press can provide. It seems that this possibility is gaining consensus below; though their use needs to be limited to material that doesn't involve information about living persons. In this article, this means that we can use those to include opinions on their perspective of what the #gamergate tag is about, but not about how it has affected particular persons. Diego (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Issues with claims&sources

There quite a lot of problems with this page. 1) It's totally one-sided 2) It names a couple of cases as 'proof' where it only has been claims, and not verified (eg Quinn and the others). While I don't argue against there having been proofs for some women in the industry having been harassed, a lot is still what it is - claims. Disputable claims at that. Newspapers and gaming websites present it as fact, but it's a still one-sided story. 3) Sources. So far NO newspaper or site mentioned has actually really much dug into it - they all copy&paste the same drivel over and over regarding gamers being 'male pigs' and 'misondrygenists'. There are people out there counter-researching, but due to the Wikipedia 'source requests' it's impossible to 'proof' the counterresearch, because no newspaper or knowledgeable site even tries to produce the counterstory. 4) 'Warediting'. I forgot the correct name for that. I won't even need to look at the article history this is happening.

Like a lot of things - Wikipedia really needs to look at the procedures etc. This way, a lot of potentially falsified information is getting in (or noteworthy info missing), create an biased view upon something - while the Wiki should be neutral, non-biased. Just my 2 cents. MicBenSte (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, what is the argument for the other side to justify their actions? Ignoring sourcing requirements for the moment, so in hopes of possibly finding a source? There is one "fair" argument I've seen, that is that there are some people that don't like the idea of video games being used to push a political agenda (I think I saw this in the LA Times article), which is a fine opinion to have and one I think we can source with reliable ones. But after that - I've got a hard time thinking that any reliable source is going to try to understand why the need to issue death threats and target certain people for doxxing, short of psychologically analyszing these (Which is not going to give a nice picture most likely).

The two cases (I am assuming Fish and Anita here) are well-established to be true. I even saw the start of Fish's doxxing when they hacked his Twitter account, and Antia's is a repeat of previous harassment. The sources reporting on both cases are the highest RS that we have for video game coverage so no reason to doubt them. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? You're missing a LOT.

From what I've been able to gather from all kinds of sources, the following all happened:

- The Quinn-incident happened first. A nasty business that was, the ex-BF going public with stuff. A large part of the stuff got debunked, and some people started to think Quinn was part of a plot.

- Verified threaths and harassments against Quinn were made. As far as I am aware, those are under investigation.

- In the meanwhile for a long time the Fine Young Capitalists had been working on a project to facilitate women being able to work on games. However, shortly after the threaths against Quinn by so far unknown parties, for some reason Quinn lashed out against FYC, and a lot of her followers started to insult, harass and threathen FYC.

- [redacted]

- The news about the Quinn' harassments came out. Quinn claimed continued harassments by 4chan and her 'infiltration' of 4chan.. However, those claims are irrefutable debatable, since tens of people who are regulars to 4chan have both laid out the structure of 4chan, as well as noting that the 4chan chat is noteable avoided - most happens on the forums/talk pages. Any 'OP', as Quinn claims to have witnessed, is more inclined to go through the forums, then through chat. Thus Quinn's 'proof' in that regard is highly debatable.

- Gaming media reported on the 'Quinn case', and started to point fingers

- 4chan (I'm not sure exact which subforum it was, either /b/ or /v/) raised money for FYC. Over $15.000 according to the interface host.

- Due to the tone of the gaming media and the reactions of devs of games and others on social media, people started to wonder for real if there was no corruption in the gaming media. Social media and others went into high gear to investigate the ties between several people originally involved in the 'Quinn Case', [redacted].

- [redacted]. A part of the regular media also copied those articles, who are in hostile tone a lot alike.

- The 'war' started due to the latter.

Due to the fact that the gaming media themselves are under scrutiny, and a few have even fired employees over misbehaviour, I highly recommend to in this case denote a lower 'trusted' rating for the gaming media, since they themselves are involved and have several dubious cases against them when it comes to independence in this.

PS: If anyone notes I've made an mistake, feel free to correct me with an additional note - this is what I that quickly remember off the top of my head. MicBenSte (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a head's up, Wikipedia is not a forum and we're not here to discuss this situation in general, especially when it comes to negative information about living persons. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if a bulk of what you wrote gets removed and possibly rev deleted; you may want to consider removing it yourself as a show of good faith.

What I believe User:Masem meant is this: what is the argument to justify their actions as reported in reliable, third-party published sources? Because that's what we're here to do: document what reliable sources say about the situation. We're not here to present a false balance, so if the vast majority of the sources take one particular side then we'll state that, and we can also state that a minority position is a minority position. Woodroar (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Even moreso, I'm just looking for reasons that doesn't have to be from RS sources, if only to help potentially find more RS sources that cover those facets. I can understand (though I personally can't see the justification for the actions) the arguments some offered about bringing political messages into video games and complaining about that. But that's a small fraction of the argument put forth by the other side. But that's the only "reason" I've seen. The rest seem to follow from the nature of who and what 4chan is and the group-think that often occurs there that is recognized by other media, and hence why any further arguments are being ignored by the press, because they see it as "more of the same" nonsense. If there is a legit argument that the other side has beyond the above one, I'd love to know what it is and look for sources to help support that better to help balance the article. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Woodroar, why should any of that be rev deleted? It doesn't contain grossly insulting or degrading material nor oversightable information. If you believe some of it to be a BLP violation you can selectively remove it yourself. Diego (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem, the argument that there's nepotism and conflicts of interest with respect to advertisement in the gaming press is different from the complaints of political content in games, and it has been well articulated in reliable sources. Diego (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's right, that's a point too, and we can include that for sure as well. I just feel that when it comes to 4chan, there is also a lot of "me too"-ism and getting on the bandwagon, which is why the media will often trivialize 4chan's intentions in other stories. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. It's a strange feeling when you can easily verify the development of ongoing events from the sources where they're happening, yet there's no reliable source that will cover them in a way we can use. Diego (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I think it is best to not try to expand this article until the whole mess has settled down and more sourcing looking back on it as neutrally as possible can make heads or tails of it. We can report the core, documentable matters of why this story is getting wide coverage (harassment and death threats of developers) which is going to make it appear biased but no more biased than how the media is reporting it. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The POV view expressed here is all well and good - but can someone please tell me what this GamerGate article is about?

• If it's about the harassment of Zoe Quinn - then that should be in her article.
• If it's about the alleged harassment, by unknown people whose links to Quinn are unclear, of FYC then that should be in her article.
• If it's about harassment of Anita Sarkeesian, then it goes in her article along with all the stuff she gets each time a video is released.
• If it's about journalistic ethics, then it should go under Video Game Culture or similar article if it's sufficiently notable (I really don't think so).
• If it's about a flame war on the internet over the use of SJW / Gamer / 4Chan - then I'm not sure that this article can really be supported by secondary sources as pretty much all the secondary sources only talk about the subjects in the terms of the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian. I also don't think a flame war on the internet is any more notable than any other.
• If it's about social activism, then that should go under gamer culture too.

Complaining about the current state of the article is pretty much redundant if the content of the article is based on an amorphous blob of personal opinion, heavily editorialised social media content which is not what wikipedia is about. Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a larger issue here, that all these events are tied to, and it might be about general "Harassment in video game development", with "Gamergate" being a subsection of it. Events of this nature started last yet (COD devs getting death threats for rebalancing the game there, for example), and this is more of the same, but now taking the political/ethical-driven nature. But I need to see dust settle to make heads and tails of the right order. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a bit POV, and recentism. Video Game Culture is likely the main place, and even then there's an argument that this has absolutely nothing to do with games. Koncorde (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be giving undue weight to opinion of one of the sides, which treats all criticism of nepotism and politicization in gaming as "harassment". While no doubt some harassment did occur(from both sides), not all criticism is harassment.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we have to be careful be clear that honest criticism is not harassment, and we can point to examples which (I'd have to check sources to make sure) TotalBiscuit found himself on a DCMA claim after scathingly reviewing one game but otherwise giving his honest opinion, and why his comment about the same when Quinn had criticism about her reportedly removed under a DCMA claim. Expanding the scope beyond GG would help to identify that there are common themes that have been running through the gaming industry and culture as a whole for a few years, and this is a turning point with GG. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources that explain what GamerGate is about, like Al-Jazeera, Forbes or even The Guardian(which while noting clearly that it takes sides, admitted that not all of criticism is harassment and there are legitimate concerns). We can base the article on them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they talk about "GamerGate" but the level of conflation with other unrelated matters leave it very much lacking in definition. Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions

In the interests of fairness and openness, I think we should open a section here to discuss proposed additions to the article, so that we can come to consensus and avoid further edit-warring when the article is unprotected. Any editor should feel free to propose wording below, with appropriate sources, for community discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I know I'm rehashing a bit what I said earlier, but I wish to propose to at least take a look at https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60 (not my blog, got linked to it by someone) and http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ (I know Forbes is currently under discussion due to the writer/blogger issue as a source). As far as I can tell, the former source has about all facts spot-on and verified mostly but is an 'unverified source', while Erik Kain of Forbes has most of it correct and is - for now still - an 'verified source'. How long that is going to last, is up to the appropiate discussion board.MicBenSte (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

:Regarding the sources - as RS, they're not what-is likely. For now, the two pages I linked are one of the few who have *some* manner of the dignity and at least try to portrait the truth. Other sources mostly are highlightning one side of the story or the other, and/or do so in an unacceptable manner.

Note: some developers and others moved from the #GamerGate tag to #Gameethics to discuss ethics in the gaming industry as a result of the muddied #GamerGate debate. Worthy of trivia note?MicBenSte (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the Forbes article is presumptively a reliable source - though I would note that, like most of the sources on this issue, it's opinionated. Medium is an open-access platform and its content has to be treated as a self-published source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

I am proposing this change to the second graf of the background section, based on Masem's version:

The incident led to broader allegations on social media that games developers and gaming media are too often closely connected. Others have observed the increasing focus on social representation and culture meaning in video games by some video games writers. The pejorative term "social justice warriors" has been used by those critical of the current state of the industry to refer to those game developers and journalists that have introduced such content into video games. Keith Stuart of The Guardian summarizes that many gamers have become dissatisfied with the game industry, leading to a schism between game developers and game players:

...The community is angry. They see conflicts of interest and corruption in every tweet and conversation between journalists and developers; in every positive preview. They want transparency in the games press. They are tired of being dictated to by writers they refer to as social justice warriors, interested more in the issues of representation and sociocultural meaning in games and game development, then the content itself.

Writing in Vox, Todd VanDerWerff notes that the controversy is also seen as attempt to silence feminist and other outsider voices in gaming:

... The #GamerGaters have some actually interesting concerns, largely driven by the changing face of video game culture. But those concerns have often been warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women. "The ‘official' line is that it's about a demand for more transparency and better ethics in games journalism," Keith Stuart, games editor for The Guardian, told me in an email. "This in itself is absolutely fine — as I wrote in my own piece, we should all be skeptical of the media. But whatever the higher motivations of some of those involved, the debate has had such a toxic undercurrent of abuse and anti-feminism that it has poisoned the whole concept."

This presents both arguments - the "gamer" argument and the "critics" argument - evenhandedly. The Paste piece would be moved to the Reactions section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Not really, uses non-reliable sources, has POV giving undue weight interpretation of the events to one of the sides, without neutrally presenting arguments of the other.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you now claiming that Vox Media is not a reliable source? On what grounds do you make this claim? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that you dropped the unreliable pasty article.Thank you. However you haven't addressed the other issues, you have cherry picked comments that push POV by giving undue weight to interpretation of the events to one of the sides, without neutrally presenting arguments of the other. Too much focus is on allegations, and the lengthy opinionated quote claiming the other side are "army of trolls" obviously is not suitable for neutral representation of the issues.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The first blockquote is an interpretation of one side's argument. The second blockquote is an interpretation of the other side's argument. We may not have one without the other. Please feel free to suggest your own second blockquote if you think you can come up with a better one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a neutral lead without any opinionated blockquotes which can be given later in responses section, for example those covered by Al Jazeera which found them notable to mention.The lead should list arguments of both sides without giving any favors to either one as well as short background info--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to propose a rewrite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

notyourshield

This is an important development, the inclusion of which would better represent what's been happening.

Cinemablend : "[I]t's being misreported that #NotYourShield – a hashtag that's being used alongside #GamerGate – was created by 4chan to 'weaponize minorities'. The hashtag – as noted by the one young fellow who started it in the video up above – was used to help give [minorities] a voice."

Metaleater : "[G]aming media [...] was accused of censoring dissent and muzzling coverage. Campaigns to promote alternative sites began, as well as an ad-blocking campaign [which targeted sites] associated with "Social Justice Warriors" [...] This eventually led to the #notyourshield hashtag, a response to the belief that columnists [were] speaking for minorities instead of treating them as individuals." Willhesucceed (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"The accusations of misogyny, racism, and bullying against 4chan and Reddit and others are also warranted. I'm sure I will take crap for saying that, but GamerGate claims to want ethical journalists who tell the truth. The truth is that just by using the words "misogyny" and "racism," I risk being doxxed because someone may decide to lump me in with those they have declared the "enemy." That's a culture of fear that 4chan and Reddit share culpability in. One person posts something. Anger swirls. Calls to arms follow. Out of the hundreds who see the original posting, one cruel person decides to do something illegal and scary about it. This is how doxxing and death threats gestate in the 4chan community, and the community as a whole does bear responsibility for this. No matter how many times they told people to behave, there are minimal consequences when they don't."

A pretty fair accounting of the issue — it's labeled an opinion piece so it has to be used with an in-text cite, but I think it's more or less a good source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Twitter : Question: this image is part of a larger one posted in the Cinema Blend article. Can it be included in this subsection, since it's already been referenced, even though it's not the entire image? Willhesucceed (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We cannot post images that are not released under a free license except in very limited circumstances. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant apart from that ... I'll assume that means it's allowed. I'll be looking into whether it's actually usable.Willhesucceed (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's freely-licensed, it might be usable as an illustration, although obviously not as a source. It would be an editorial question as to whether it's sufficiently interesting or important to merit inclusion.

I note that its status as a collage of other pictures makes it highly problematic from a free-use standpoint — we would need to know that all of those other pictures included in the picture were released as free use. One can't just take a bunch of copyrighted images, photoshop them into one new image and then make that image freely-licensed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The licencing issues are problematic, but more importantly I think that given that our sources for NotYourSheild are pretty weak, and that there's particular doubt in those sources as to the movement's veracity, we need to be careful about giving it too much weight here. I think an image is out of line for what is at best a footnote based on the sources we have now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair concern. I'll hold off until/if it gets more notice. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A great many posters on #notyourshield have been harassed by people opposed to Gamergate, particularly by claiming those tweeters to be straight, white males without evidence, and then trolling them into proving themselves. One recent example; another (WARNING NSFW; after receiving proof, the troll apparently actually photoshopped pornographic artwork onto it in a futile attempt to discredit the photograph). This is especially dangerous WRT LGBT individuals, who may be subject to violence as a result of outing themselves. The clearly demonstrable harassment of large numbers of people who are directly involved in the Twitter discussion is being completely ignored by what editors here would like to call "reliable sources"; meanwhile, alleged harassment of Anita Sarkeesian is reported without question in this article, and treated as relevant for no reason beyond the say-so of those sources. The bias is absurd. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We only summarize what reliable sources report, not anonymous IP's. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. I'm commenting in order to protest the bias. Again: how can you expect your RS policy to provide unbiased coverage of a topic that is explicitly about criticizing those "reliable sources" for their bias and corruption? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We report what reliable sources say. If they are incorrect or inadequate, then that is up to other reliable sources to correct the matter, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies, then take the issue to Wikipedia:Village pump. This page is for a discussion of improvements to this particular article, not disagreements with site-wide policies. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: For the purpose of establishing that something was said on Twitter, does a link to the tweet itself qualify as a reliable source? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't use Twitter links as sources ever, because Twitter itself is not a reliable source. With limited exceptions, there is no verification of identity (and thus no accountability) and, by its very nature, Twitter lacks any editorial controls or fact-checking structure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as the reliability of sources is contextual and depends on how they're used and the content they support in an article. Twitter posts are reliable for proving the existence and contents of that Twitter post, and they are sometimes used as such. However, this is only done when an independent source has analyzed the post and established why it's important to the topic, and should be included in combination with that source. Diego (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So what I'm understanding from you both is that no matter how much harassment of #notyourshield posters occurs on Twitter, no matter how much of it I can directly point to, this evidence cannot be considered noteworthy or in any way included in the article until a source that Wikipedia editors consider "reliable" deems it such and writes about it as such? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much yes, that's the most essential way to decide what can be written in Wikipedia. However, *you* can play a part in deciding what sources can be considered reliable, as you are also a Wikipedia editor. Diego (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not analyze primary sources like tweets to decide whether or not they are important, that is the job of journalists and historians. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources to provide a summary of what has been deemed important by writers and experts. Gamaliel (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but in that case, I have to object to existing content of the article. The third sentence of the Background section: "Kotaku editor-in-chief Stephen Totillo stated that the writer had not written anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship and had never reviewed her games." (Incidentally, Mr. Totilo's name is misspelled there.) The source for this is Mr. Totilo's article on Kotaku. How is that not a primary source? That's right near the start; I'm sure I could find other similar problems with a more thorough examination. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tolito's statement is actually a first-party, secondary source. Kotaku is representing the journalist in question, but Tolito is writing this in a secondary manner to explain there was no issue. However, irregardless of that, other third-party secondary sources have pointed to Tolito's statement as evidence that the claimed "sleeping for reviews" claims made by the ex-bf are false. --MASEM (t) 06:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Then cite those third-party sources, not Totilo. Kotaku cannot reasonably be considered a reliable source for anything. It's an obvious clickbait site, and it's especially not reliable WRT the question of its own journalistic bias. Even the New Yorker is not a reliable source for a question like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.5.250 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't analyze primary sources, but we can use them to verify what they contain, which is what the IP user asked. Those are two different usages that serve different purposes. What you say is true, though we should be careful not to imply that we don't use primary sources as that would be misleading. Diego (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Related to the not your shield bit, I find this part jarring: "But when there is clear evidence that 4chan is trying to bolster Gamergate's fight by pretending to be minorities and women, all credibility is lost. ...." There is clear evidence of this? Where is the clear evidence? Its a post on 4chan. I know Im a newbie, but that cannot be up to wikipedia standards. Also I see clear evidence of the contrary. There are several youtube videos of minorities and women using the #gamergate #notyourshield tags. Can there at least be a mention to the possibility of it not being contrived by 4chan? At the least, can you take down that quote on the basis its basically one degree away from a screenshot of 4chan? 69.206.174.119 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That statement is sourced to the website of a highly-reliable source; to wit, On the Media, a radio program produced by a well-respected journalistic group and aired on National Public Radio stations. It is in-text cited so that readers know it is the opinion of that website. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

However, the second part of the quote comes out of nowhere. I know there is an issue about people doubting the veracity of the people using #notyourshield, but we have no sourceable evidence that this is a significant number of them (a random screenshot from 4chan is not one), and as such, that position has to be treated as a fringe and not appropriate for WP. There is something about how the legitmate voices are getting lost in the noise from those engaging in harassment and other aspects, so the first part of the quote is fine. --MASEM (t) 06:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the difference is that we're not making a claim of fact, we're making a claim about an opinion with an in-text citation. We're stating that it is the opinion of Alex Goldman, who writes for On the Media, that there is clear evidence of this. It's placed in the "Responses" section, which further makes it clear that it's an opinionated statement. We don't require that reliable sources cited within an article further source their own opinions and allegations — it's enough that it has been published by a reliable source.

If we go by your thesis, we would have to remove the statement by Liana Kerzner that gaming journalists have made "unprofessional, anti-intellectual, and dehumanizing" generalizations, because we don't have any reliable source for that either. But we shouldn't remove it, because it's a statement of her opinion and it doesn't need to have a source backing it up.

Similarly, we would also have to remove Erik Kain's statement that "the video game space has been heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant" because that's not backed up with any reliable sources. Once again, it's not required because that statement is his opinion and we shouldn't remove it.

Your edit completely gutted the meaning of the sourced article and I have replaced the full and complete quote from the article to make clear his point — a common one in reliable sources — that the trolling and misogyny have drowned out any meaningful discussion in the movement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Except, where this accusation that people behind notyourshield are not the people they claim to be is out of left field in this article as it is. However, I am going to try to work [23] this in which then will make that point more relevant. --MASEM (t) 07:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you. Screenshots from 4chan and Twitter are no no, because there's 0 verifying that the source is valid. That makes sense and I agree. However, if I write an article where I pin the crux of my argument on screenshots from 4chan and Twitter, its A okay. I understand its an opinion, but it levels a heavy accusation with no indication of the extreme dubious nature of the claim. 69.206.174.119 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with a source-extremely biased and emotional language. Doesn't seem to me as reliable as RS

I have reviewed one source used called "Why We Didn't Want to Talk About "GamerGate", Garrett Martin, Paste, Sept. 4, 2014" It consists of extremely biased and emotional language, combined with insults, I will quote some parts:

• "Something idiotic and ugly and depressing and laughable"
• "They call it #GamerGate, because they have absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever"
• "That’s who is behind this entire situation: anti-woman trolls"
• "All the conspiracies and trumped-up claims of “evidence” of collusion among developers, press agents and the press spread by the #GamerGate founders are lies and distortions"

Based on the above, the article seems mostly to be a personal essay full with emotional outbursts, insults, and a very engaged POV. As such I wouldn't think of it as Reliable Source, that can be presented as representing objective information. I suggest either removing it completely, or attributing the opinions in full in responses section below.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I will agree that we should not be using the Paste article as part of the "factual" aspect of the problem. It's an opinion and can be used for Reactions. I'll try to see if I can a neutral source that summarizes it better. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

At least in terms of establishing the nature of GamerGate, I read through and found the Guardian article to be very fair, identify three issues from the gamers side, and thus have remove the Paste statement in favor of the Guardian one. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(And to be clear, while the Guardian does show support for the "SJW" side and against the GamerGate side in the last part, the article attempts to lay out the issues on both sides fairly before applying the writer's personal opinion and notes that not everyone rallying under the GamerGate side is necessary in the harassment category.) --MASEM (t) 19:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I must ask that you self-revert your edit to this protected page, Masem. There is no consensus that the Paste article is inappropriate; it is an indisputable reliable source and its opinion does not disqualify it from use in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You say it's "an indisputable reliable source"; yet MyMoloboaccount disputed it, and you provide no evidence for your assertion.

It's an organized publication with a verifiable editorial structure, identifiable oversight of content and an established reputation. Which means it meets the reliable sources criteria as a secondary source and is presumptively a reliable source. As the statement sourced to the magazine is an opinion, we provide a in-text citation. If the user wishes to dispute it, the Reliable Sources noticeboard is right over there, a central location for discussing source reliability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Masem. I am not opposed to looking at how to rewrite that section and using your version as a basis, but we should discuss and come to a consensus on the rewrite beforehand, and I object to removing the source entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Paste source can be used elsewhere, but it should not be used in the section that is trying to lay out the facts of the case, due to the immediately of which side it takes. It can be an opinion piece , certainly. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian piece isn't laying out any "facts" either, Masem - you've used it to articulate one side of the argument about what the controversy is about. We can certainly use the Paste piece to articulate the other side of the argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian piece, by the end of the article, is clearly against the GG groups (the gamer side), but it fairly presents all the arguments they use to describe why these gamers are angry. There are plenty of other sources that lay out the other side of the issue, as well as the Guardian one (eg it points out that he game industry works like any other media industry, that collusion between journalists and the content creators is an unavoidable aspect of anyone working in this type of industry). It does not try to inject its opinion unless after it has laid out the facts. Compare that to the Paste article that comes out swinging against that group. (Additionally, in terms of RS-ness, I would put the Guardian above Paste in general) --MASEM (t) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point that there is a significant POV that the entire thing is manufactured, and if we're going to extensively blockquote someone laying out the "gamer" perspective, so to speak, then we have to extensively blockquote someone laying out the "critical" perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use Vox and Keith Stuart's discussion here. I will amend my proposed version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, and herein lies the issue: virtually all of the sources discussing this are opinionated. If you're arguing to exclude opinionated pieces, we'll have to move CinemaBlend, Forbes, etc. out as well. If you strike all of the sources which could reasonably construed to have an opinion, we're left with pretty much nothing to write about and this is going to be a very, very short article that doesn't say much. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's incredibly disingenuous. The language and rhetoric in the Paste article is nothing like that in the CinemaBlend and Forbes articles. Erik Kain is not throwing around insults and editorializing about the motives of others without evidence based only on his personal opinions. It's frankly insulting of you to suggest anything like that.

If you have issues with other sources, feel free to discuss them in appropriate section, so that this discussion doesn't become focused on another issue. Most reliable sources such as Al Jazeera avoid insults or emotional language, this one doesn't, making it unreliable and not objective.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, uh, no, you don't get to dictate what gets discussed in a talk page section. If you're going to assert that a source is unusable because it's opinionated, then it's fair game to suggest that many other sources are unusable for similar reasons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That is an obviously and blatantly disingenuous misrepresentation of MyMoloboaccount's argument and you should be ashamed for making it.

"Emotional language" doesn't doesn't disqualify one from being used as a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It does, emotions per se contradict reliability. At best it could be used in responses section with full attribution. If the issue persists we can take it to WP:RS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, uh, no, it doesn't. Please go ahead and take it to WP:RSN. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur; I noted previously we shouldn't use Paste. We have a lot of other options, so there's no reason to use a biased source when we can used unbiased ones. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems there is a consensus from several other users not to use the source, the only user objecting is NBSB who brought the emotionally engaged source into the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am amused that you think there is anything resembling a consensus at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is hypocritical of you to call out others by saying there is no consensus, and then unilaterally declare the source reliable.

Pretty sure you are the only one supporting the use of this piece as objective source of information.Of course there is a debate on other subjects, but this one reached consensus so far. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Several sections missing

• Censorship on various sites about this subject.
• The fact that GamerGate is not about harassment.
• Youtube videos which are a major factor of providing coverage on the topic are not mentioned.

--Artman40 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" is almost exclusively about harassment of several women in the gaming industry. The "ethics in game journalism" is at most a side-bar to the entire affair, an excuse made by some quarters to justify the harassment. As for youtube, it is not a reliable source for use in the Wikipedia; what "AngryFan12345" decided to vlog about regarding the topic is not important to us. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the first video that kicked the GamerGate events off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Equc1QnQ9rw Is it about harassment? Also http://attackongaming.com/gaming-talk/reddit-mod-outs-reddit-for-censorship-during-gamergate/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ . Are these unrealiable sources in your opinion? --Artman40 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

YouTube and AttackOnGaming are, yes, obviously unreliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, if a site you considered an RS were to make the claims in the Youtube video, and cite the Youtube video as evidence, would that pass muster? If not, can you explain how the evidence for Anita Sarkeesian's harassment is any stronger than that? Or is Twitter @femfreq now considered an RS? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" is almost exclusively about harassment of several women in the gaming industry"-according to the narrative of one of the sides of the controversy, that is subject to crticism. While no doubt harassment was made on both sides, reliable sources note that the issues reach far beyond harassment, and even The Guardian which defended one of the sides, admitted that there are legitimate concerns raised during these events.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, and we must present each side of the controversy even-handedly. We must present both claims: that it's about journalistic ethics on one side, and about harassment of women on the other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"We must present both sides even-handedly", by allowing people to make unilateral statements on the talk page in favour of one side and refusing to consider inclusion of other POVs. Is this for real? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, GamerGate states that many of these "realiable" sources are in fact unreliable. In fact, many editors who write the articles about GamerGate being about harassment are in fact involved with this as well. --Artman40 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't magically become unreliable simply because someone makes a claim of bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What about demonstrated conflicts of interest? Are we really going to accept that Kotaku is a RS on this issue when they have a clear vested interest in defending Grayson? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately for some, not all "sides" to a story are equal, or deserving of equal weight or time. Fringe or far-out criticisms, even when covered by reliable sources, do not always get equal time with the things that actually happened, e.g. Barack Obama contains precisely zero mentions of the fake birth certificate hysteria. This is why WP:UNDUE exists. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly: as soon as one side starts using death threats, the press are likely going to ignore any qualified POV from that side. We can separate out very valid viewpoints that have been brought up by the gamer side: the transparency needed in the industry, how some devs push political agendas in games, but we're not ever likely to get a rationale, neutrally-written story that attempts to justify the need to harassment and issue death threats. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Exactly: as soon as one side starts using death threats"-death threats were made by members of both sides, however not all death threats were covered.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If the other death threats weren't covered in reliable sources, then they aren't part of our discussion. Verifiability is a core content policy.

In any event, the overwhelming majority perspective among reliable sources focuses on the threats and harassment against Quinn, Sarkeesian and other cultural critics and supporters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I will search if death threats were reported. Hover, personal insults and harassment by the other side though were noted by reliable sources.Your claim is giving undue representation to one POV, which is not supported by reliable sources, even such as The Guardian which declared their support to one of the sides.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have the undue weight policy exactly backward. We weight in-article representations of a point of view based on their prominence in reliable sources. By far, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources focus on the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian as the touchstone of this issue. Thus, the NPOV policy requires us to give that viewpoint predominance.

The viewpoint you espouse is the minority viewpoint in reliable sources. Therefore, we must depict that as a minority viewpoint and not give it undue weight. Wikipedia does not have an "equal time" policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that only one side's death threats were reported, and thus used as an excuse to "ignore qualified POV", is exactly why the reliability of these sources on this subject is being called into question. You are engaging in circular reasoning here: you consider the existing sources reliable because you think they are free of bias; you think they are free of bias because you are unwilling to consider the evidence of bias; but you are unwilling to consider the evidence of bias because it's not from one of those reliable sources.

"Reliable sources" shouldn't be required in the context of making an argument about whether a given source is reliable. Otherwise, where is the bootstrap for that process? This is, after all, meta-discussion, not the main article. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, not supported by sources. Reliable sources have addressed both sides, even one such as The Guardian. One of the most objective articles was from Al Jazeera which addressed both viewpoints equally. By now you have demonstrated obvious bias towards one of the sides of the controversy here. The article needs to represent NPOV.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not a "personal opinion," it's verifiable from the thrust of the reliable sources, including this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one... I could go on. (And will: this one and this one and this one, too.)

Ah yes, the claim that "you have demonstrated obvious bias" by a user who has demonstrated obvious bias themselves. Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, cherry-picked, weak sources(Vice is considered RS? If so, I am dissapointed), and even they do not support you. I note that you ignored major reliable sources such as Al Jazeera, Forbes, Business Insider and others that do no support your POV. As to my POV-it is that we must present all viewpoints in neutral manner according to Wiki standards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sure, The Globe and Mail, Time, Ars Technica, The Independent, the Los Angeles Times, Slate, etc. - cherry-picked and weak sources, all.

By the way, I'm happy to add the Forbes link, because it supports my argument quite well. Although Erik Kain is a "Forbes contributor," which means that his writing is not reviewed, he is not edited and it is essentially an opinion piece. See this discussion thread.. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, you have obviously not read the Business Insider piece - it is simply a syndicated version of The Guardian piece found here. Which says "A spiteful blogpost by the ex-lover of indie games developer Zoe Quinn, and the launch of the latest Tropes vs Women video by Sarkeesian, which analyses the sexist depiction of women in some games, have led to reams of appalling threats and abuse online" and mentions not a thing about alleged harassment of GamerGate supporters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When confronted with the reality of the overwhelming weight of the reliable sources, your only recourse is to somehow claim that they are all cherry-picked? OK then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"When confronted with the reality of the overwhelming weight of the reliable sources"-such as Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Forbes, Slate, Business Insider? They do not support your claims. In fact, both The Guardian and Business Insider, actually mention legitimate criticism and issues with the gaming industry, even as they take one of the sides. I am sorry, but your heavy POV is not reflected in these sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My willingness to assume good faith is growing thin. I literally just quoted from The Guardian piece you tout, in which the author depicts Quinn and Sarkeesian as the recipients of "reams of appalling threats and abuse online." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Slate article you tout says The entire situation is a dismal feedback loop of rage and abuse, where the harassment gets Quinn and her game more media coverage, and the harassers take that as evidence that they were right all along—something that’s already happened to Quinn several times over the past year. ... I know it’s unfair for me to ask this of you, young gamer. A fair number of people—not you!—are doing a lot worse than criticizing. Those adolescents (or arrested adolescents) are trolling Quinn, harassing and threatening her, hacking her accounts, even calling her home and circulating nude pictures of her. ... As gaming writer Jenn Frank says, “the TRUTH is, it turns out being a girl professionally, or on the Internet, etc., is VERY HARD.” Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian, a popular target for harassment, is getting “very scary threats” against her family, and all she does is talk about video games. So yes, that source supports my argument. Thank you for acknowledging it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, several companies have actually updated their ethics policies in response to this, which runs counter to the claims that this is all about misogyny. It clearly is not, and it is not universally perceived as being about such. It is a combination of a culture war (between the social justice folks and the hardcore gamers, as well as between the gamers and gaming journalists and developers who have denegrated them), online flame war (at this point there have been numerous death threats thrown around on both sides, doxxing, harassment, ect.), an argument about the ethics of gaming journalism, and several other things besides. The idea that it is all about misogyny is a point of view advanced by Zoe Quinn and her supporters, but there are numerous sources which note that it is not, and that the claims of such are, in fact, playing the victim. This is not to say that there has not been massive amounts of harassment, because there has been, clearly. But the idea that this is all about misogyny - or should be presented as such - is not supported by the RSs. Some of them claim it is; many claim otherwise. There are many people with many different agendas here. Our agenda here, on Wikipedia, should be to document; the AFD on this noted that as this is a current event, we should make sure to be careful about WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:BIAS and try to do our best to cover the who, what, where, and when as much as possible, as opposed to trying to get too far into things. If we take a step back, take a deep breath, and document what is going on, we will be much better for it. That was what I was trying to do above, with the bit about the background and article layout; the background should be the EASIEST part to write because it isn't about recent events but about what has happened in the past. I suggest that writing about the start of this is easier than writing about what is going on at this very moment because we have more vision on what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this article should say "this is all about misogyny." What I am saying is that this article must reflect and give weight to the significant POV that it is all about misogyny. Wikipedia is not going to decide whether it's about journalistic ethics or misogyny, and we don't care what you or anyone else thinks it "clearly" is or is not.

We must accurately describe each of the competing claims about this controversy, giving due weight to those that are most prevalent in reliable sources. This is, as I have noted, precisely what the NPOV policy requires. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

As I have repeatedly noted, a prevalent viewpoint in the reliable sources is that the movement's statements that it is centered on journalistic ethics are belied by, or at the very least drowned out by, the overwhelming torrent of misogynistic abuse, harassment and slut-shaming aimed at Zoe Quinn and others.

• As Vox's Todd VanDerWerff put it, "The #GamerGaters have some actually interesting concerns, largely driven by the changing face of video game culture. But those concerns have often been warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women." He quotes The Guardian's gaming editor Keith Stuart as saying, "Whatever the higher motivations of some of those involved, the debate has had such a toxic undercurrent of abuse and anti-feminism that it has poisoned the whole concept."
• On TownHall.com, a relatively sympathetic piece by Kevin Glass notes that "The angry, hyperbolic, sometimes dangerous reaction of the gaming consumption community is troubling. Anecdotally, it takes only five minutes in a first-person shooter online lobby to understand why. The gamers involved seem to be in perpetual competition to see who can hurl the most vile insults at each other. It’s not an environment I’d want to expose my mother, wife, or daughter to. One might say that if a woman can’t handle that kind of environment, they should voluntarily stay away; but that’s precisely the point. A certain segment of the gaming community endeavors to make women feel as unwelcome as possible. And certainly, we can all agree that posting private information and photos, combined with violent threats, is out of bounds. This is something that all gamers should band together to condemn more strenuously than the minor crime of biased journalism."
• In The Globe and Mail, Emma Woolley writes, "Even if the allegations against Ms. Quinn were true, it is hard to justify the extreme levels of rage being spewed online, which apparently includes continuing harassment of her and her friends. ... As Ms. Quinn herself acknowledged, what this actually about is the entitlement and disdain shown to game creators, and some longtime gamers feeling threatened by more people moving into what they consider their space. Frustration that had been building amongst them–annoyed by the rise in discussions centered on gender, race and diversity in video games–has now burst forth. This group is so incensed that they’re using petty gossip about someone’s personal life to fuel a movement aimed at “taking back” video games from evil feminists who dare to make/support non-traditional games, or criticize AAA titles, under the guise of “integrity.” ... Gaming’s most pervasive issue isn’t corruption, but the people who’ve taken ownership of something that isn’t solely theirs to begin with. In trying their damnedest to limit the appeal of the medium and use online harassment to achieve their goals, this group of toxic trolls are proving themselves to be gaming’s biggest problem."
• In the Los Angeles Times, Todd Martens says "The exact incident, in which the spurned ex of a female independent game designer reportedly published embarrassing personal details of their relationship and accused her of infidelity, is now beside the point. That moment has become an excuse, an opportunity to rail against designers and writers who are attempting to intellectualize the medium — “social justice warriors,” as they’ve been labeled by their online assailants. These “social justice warriors” are seen as capable of destroying the very essence of what some players love about video games: violence, fantasy and scantily clad women. Far from making a point, the ugly reaction has instead exposed the rage and rampant misogyny that lies beneath the surface of an industry that’s still struggling to mature."

I could quote from each and every one of them if you'd like. The point is, their POV is significant and appears to be the predominant POV in reliable sources. Our policy requires that we give that prominence due weight in this article. The fact that you disagree with their POV, believe their POV is a "conflict of interest" or believe them to be "playing the victim" is utterly irrelevant, because none of those things have any bearing on Wikipedia's treatment of them as reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So I made an account for this, but I honestly have to say something. This whole controversy has been normal folks vs the media. There is going to be an incredible amount of sources for the media BECAUSE they try to discredit GamerGate. This whole article misrepresents what this movement is fighting for (Which is journalist ethics, look at the gamergate hashtag on twitter). I honestly believe if this article can only focus on one side because of the controversy being against the media, it shouldn't even exist. If it continues to exist, it is not an encyclopedia article, but an opinion piece. There was an actual tweet a few days after this started where someone said, "Oh, I didn't know they were calling for radio silence" to try to make it go away. This has been what we have been fighting against, and you are being incredibly unjust to this topic. I don't know all of the Wikipedia articles or anything, but this is from an outsiders and frequent users point of view, and also the view of people who are on the side of gamer gate fighting for this. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So GamerGate has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian then? It's just normal people vs the media, because the media are not normal folks obviously? If you can point out to me the "movement" and its headquarters, leaders, manifesto and / or objectives I would be much happier about it existing as an article rather than the headline of an online flame war between four factions of interrelated groups pretending to all be on a higher horse than the next. Koncorde (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Normal folks" as in those who do not report news stories. #fiveguysburgersandfries was about Zoe. #GamerGate started when Adam Baldwin tweeted it and people rallied under it to fight against corruption and the current level of journalist ethics. There has been absoutely no leaders because of it being gamers v gaming media. Normal gamers are looking for constant proof of corruption and have found it, but many outlets wont cover it. Journalist funding Quinn, [refactored due to BLP concerns], and a media outlet change their ethics policy because of it Escapist. knowyourmeme is a better article right now than Wikipedia. All of those things have been uncovered and pushed for under #gamergate, but no one will report on it because RPS/Kotaku/Gamasutra/etc. are all pushing against us. There have been no leaders, but the major players who brought light to things were Totalbiscuit, mundanematt (Who Zoe flagged for a DMCA on his video explaining everything, but it was reinstated by Youtube as a false claim), the Internet Aristocrat, and Adam Baldwin, who started #GamerGate. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

First, part of the problem is that this article locked down with full protection, so we can't make changes (Technically I as admin could but barring outright BLP issues, shouldn't be touching it as involved). Second , I do this we can tag Totalbiscuit's piece, but this is understand that he was against the use of the DMCA to quench criticism having been in the same position some months back when his own review was put down. Adam Baldwin is mentioned but beyond throwing his name into the debate, there's not much we can say. What we have to realize is that most of what is on the GamerGame side are, for all purposes, random Internet users, speaking with a common voice. It is going to be very hard to find a source that digs much onto that. What we can do to prevent excessive bias is to make sure that covering the sources that do favor the anti-GG side are not used in excess. This is partially why I would want to have this article cover the overall larger issue of gamers vs game dev/journals that has persisted for a few years now, so that GG is a part, but only a part, of that, and thus balancing ou the article further and diminishing the need to fully document GG to a point that we really can't --MASEM (t) 00:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, and that is the best way to explain it. This is a common voice vs the media. The reason I bring up Adam Baldwin is that he started #gamergate with this tweet. It seems you have to have news sources though, and most news sources that I read attribute gamergate to 4chan, as well as #notyourshield, which rose out of it. The article, right now, is so horribly biased because the only news outside sources are going to have (or their main news), is the news that the games media, who the common voice is fighting against, are writing. This is not right, and it skews the side of the story, since wikipedia needs 'reliable sources' to write something. I agree with expanding the article though, since it would be relevant then. Other than that I would rather see it deleted, since there are obvious things causing the side of GG to not be reported on. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

However, we do have sources that are trying to present the other side , after pulling the more legitimate voices from the mess. They (these sources) have pointed out that the GG want transparency in the media, they don't like games being made that push certain agendas, etc. Those are all fair points (you may or may not agree with them) that can be included to balance out the picture. That's all stuff tied in with expanding the article beyond the present GG events. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well... then my grievances are being worked on already. It is just really irking to come in here and constantly see, "We don't have to give insight into one side of the debate if the 'reliable sources' show a heavy lean to the other side' kinda stuff. The movement, that so many people have worked on and are trying to push (GG for journalistic integrity, etc.), has been constantly slandered and insulted (as well as compared to ISIS... I am not even kidding), and it is worrisome that there is a chance our push is going to be shadowed by those we are fighting against. So thank you for actually replying to my concerns, and for others that are worried also. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen this mentioned in talk yet but Brietbart produced three articles 1, 2, 3 over the course of the event (so far). One of which seems to support the theory of GamerGate being about ethics in gaming journalism as opposed to harassment. I however know very little about them so I am unsure on how reliable they are, thoughts? -- CrypticChronos (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has been discussed on this page and it is in no way a reliable source. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please give any kind of explanation as to how Breitbart isn't a reliable source? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A brief look at our handy article about Breitbart.com should explain it — the site has a long and indisputable history of publishing fabrications, hoaxes, outright lies, etc. It is not a reliable news organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The same can be said to sites which focus only on "harassment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.108.144 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh I see it now, (Bit embarrassed I missed it so much text on this page) -- CrypticChronos (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Trying to work out what the larger scope is that leads up to GG

I'm trying to figure out what the right approach for this article as, right now, it seems that there was nothing there until the ex's allegations on Quinn. But this has been a situation brewing for some time.

The Guardian article justifies that we're at this point due to two facets: the rise of the indie game market (which allows for titles that would include those that include "messages"), and the increase of the use of social media that makes anyone a possible game critic.

The Guardian article also points out that gamers have been critical of game journalism for some time; one example give is the Doritos-gate thing (back in 2012 [24]) but possibly even goes at least as far back as Jeff Gerstmann's departure from Gamespot after the questionable Kane & Lynch review in 2007 ([25]).

Another facet here is that events since last year have been cases of gamers harassing developers (the COD game balancing stuff), and the involvement of the IDGA and now the FBI to try to stem that. We also have the fact that when Quinn released Depression Quest last year she was also harassed.

If we can describe all these events, and then start a section on the actual part of "GamerGate" to say that it is considered the flashpoint of all these things brewing, that would help set the stage better for the reader and make it clear this isn't something that just happened for no reason. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also the clearly-articulated argument in a number of reliable sources that the entire thing amounts to a harassment campaign, and we would violate NPOV by failing to note it alongside the "gamer" argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, Quinn's harassment from last year should be included, and some of the other mid-2013 events were considered harassment too (in fact, that is why IDGA got involved). --MASEM (t) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree re: background. That was what I was trying to note above - this whole thing was a flashpoint. People talk about this as if it "started", but really, it has been brewing for years - some would say decades. John Romero's ad years ago for Daikatana really is an example of the same sort of disrespect for gamers, and is frequently cited as such. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Another facet here is that events since last year have been cases of gamers harassing developers, please note that the harassment is not one sided, one of the reliable sources here, notes that people criticizing game journalists and developers have been harassed as well. One angle that doesn't seem to be covered so far is Silverstring Media.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I do feel that the FYC /Quinn thing needs to be included too, in part that this shows what you said, this is not a one sided "attack" on the other, and we can certainly source that (the Vox article and carefully with this Vice articles). And same with Phil Fish, as he has had very heated words in the past before these events (as I recall, stuff that lead to the cancellation of Fez 2) --MASEM (t) 20:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but condemning harassers for their behavior is not in itself harassment. This is just like the Quinn article last week, where people are digging up bad and biased opinion pieces in order to mitigate the treatment that Quinn and others were subject to. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sorry, but condemning harassers for their behavior is not in itself harassment."There were death threats to the other side and personal insults as well. Far from just "condemning".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

By your logic, Tarc, Zoe Quinn would not be the subject of harassment herself, seeing as she has harassed others. The Zoe Quinn's supporters doxxed, hacked, threatened, and sent out death threats to people. Heck, they doxxed Wikipedia users for editing this Wikipedia article and the one on Zoe Quinn. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reporting significant counter-harassment, and indeed are focusing almost exclusively on the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are not reporting significant counter-harassment, and indeed are focusing almost exclusively on the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian" this is incorrect.I have read numerous reliable sources that reported on harassment from both sides, and none of the reliable sources focus exclusively about these two figures you focus on. In fact a large portion of the debate is completely bypassing these two figures, and attempts to divert it to them have been criticized by critics of gaming journalism and industry as attempts to turn around the discussion about non-issue(this was covered by RS as well).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've linked to a number of reliable sources which reported significant counter-harassment; the What Culture? piece noted the death threats leveled at the Brietbart writer, for instance, while Business Insider has noted both the signature gathering campaign about harassment by game devs (which had more than the one that the game devs were signing - in fact, I believe we even cite that article in the article, or did at one point). There have been numerous articles which have noted harassment by these folks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TD, so it seems death threats are confirmed by reliable sources. As such they should be covered in appropriate section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. There may be a few mentions of alleged counter-harassment, but they are neither as credible nor as widespread as the discussion of harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian and others. Ergo, we weight the discussion of their harassment far more heavily than we weight any alleged counter-harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

" but they are neither as credible nor as widespread " That is your view, that doesn't seem to be supported by RS. Note that you use alleged when talking about the other side, but take others at face value when it comes to the another. This indicates bias. We should describe both sides neutrally.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And you're wrong. Because this is a list of reliable sources which support my view: this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one... I could go on. (And will: this one and this one and this one, too.) And you have no rebuttal except to sputter that I have somehow "cherry-picked" every reliable source on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"And you're wrong." That's hardly an argument." Because this is a list of reliable sources which support my view"-again, under close scrutiny these sources do not support your view, especially The Guardian, Slate(which actually goes against your argument) or the Business Insider. You have also omitted major reliable sources like Al Jazeera, which completely contradict your claims. As to others, Vice seems like a weak source and I wouldn't consider it reliable source. I am sorry, but you have contradicted yourself with many of these links.

"And you have no rebuttal except to sputter", personal insults don't add to the credibility of your argument. I suggest that you keep your arguments civil--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention several of those are unusuable; The Guardian piece is not usable; conflict of interest. The Independent article is a blog (voices is their blog/opinion section from my understanding). The time article was written by Leigh Alexander, who as I noted previously has a clear conflict of interest in the matter as well, as she is employed by one of the people who is targeted by the accusations of corruption (and indeed, is involved in both gaming journalism AND promotion of games for pay, which is itself a conflict of interest). The Motherboard article is an attack piece and not a reliable source. Business Insider makes note of the harassment of gamers by journalists and game developers. That's just off the top of my head. It is easy to list off hundreds of blogs and unreliable sources and attack pieces. It is much harder to list off good, reliable sources which aren't such. That's one of the major challenges the article faces. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no "conflict of interest" in The Guardian or Time pieces, and they are perfectly usable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been arguing by assertion throughout. A very clear conflict of interest was just shown to you, and your response was flat denial. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How are those not conflicts of interest? One of them directly financially supported Zoe Quinn; the other one works for at least one of the places which has been the target of criticism and is writing in defense of actions she herself has been involved in. I'm referring to the first article from The Guardian; the second one is totally fine. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. The Guardian is a reliable source, period. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand the RS policy; a source is never "reliable, period." You need to read WP:SOURCE and WP:QS. The Guardian may be reliable in most instances, but that does not mean that they are always a reliable source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And you don't understand that your unsourced and unsupported assertion of 3-level convoluted Glenn Beck-chalkboard-esque "conflicts of interest" are not sufficient to render a source unreliable. If a reliable source has made a claim that there is a conflict of interest, we should report that claim. But simply working for someone who is targeted by an accusation does not make someone "biased" - otherwise literally all it would take to render any source unusably "biased" is for someone, anyone to make an accusation against them. Presto, that source now has a conflict of interest because I accused it of a conflict of interest? Circular logic must fail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"3-level convoluted Glenn Beck-chalkboard-esque"? Seriously? That's incredibly uncivil of you, and demonstrates massive biased POV on your part. There is nothing convoluted nor circular about the reasoning that a person who's part of a group that stands accused of corruption has a conflict of interest when writing an article denying that accusation and trying to pass it off as impartial. It's crystal-clear. Leigh's piece in Time isn't presented as a defense against accusations of corruption in the court of public opinion; it's presented as yet another attack on gamers and the same sort of dismissal that you've been making throughout all of this. She uses scare quotes liberally to deny the sincerity of Gamergate posters, meanwhile making no mention of how she's implicated in the accusations. Yet she writes as if she has a NPOV that she simply doesn't. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And this continued argument is again why I ask what GamerGate is, then we can begin to decipher what is actually relevant. Koncorde (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to keep out of the tire fire that is the back-and-forth on the article, but I humbly suggest the following source at DigiTimes. It is from a reputable Taiwanese newspaper. It is speaking in the context of how the situation may affect technology sales, so the viewpoint is practical rather than pushing a particular agenda. The summary of events under the first few headings is compact. It also sticks to nice neutral "argued that" and "as some saw it" phrasing, particularly for the GG side's assertions, that should be palatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToukaMiya (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Like most of the other sources, it's an opinion column. Useful, but to be used with caution. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

One major advantage that the source has is that it is from a very different source from most of the other sources (being both from another country and from a very different point of view, as the concern of the article is completely different from pretty much all the other articles). It is always good to have more points of view in order to combat systematic bias. But, as noted, it is a commentary piece, which means it should be used cautiously. Still, a lot of it seems potentially useful. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate disambiguation page?

If this survives AfD, should we create a disambiguation page for this, seeing as the only difference between this and gamergate is a capital letter? Upjav (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we'd likely need to move this, as per proper WP casing, it should be "Gamergate" and that conflicts with the scientific term (Which has priority for naming here), and so likely be at "Gamergate (video game controversy)". --MASEM (t) 03:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense - that's what I figured would be how we'd distinguish it. Upjav (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Add protection template

Please add a template to notify the protection status. I didn't notice it was protected until someone pointed it out at the deletion discussion. Diego (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Diego (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Incredibly biased.

Wikipedia editors really ought to be ashamed of themselves at how biased this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.17.153 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see several above sections: we're aware that we need to rework this article but as it is under full protection, it cannot be updated at this time. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. why is it under full protection? 2. who makes these decisions? 3. will it be unprotected at some future point? If so, when? 14.200.20.112 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It was quickly attracting people with negative comments that are against BLP; it will be automatically unprotected on the 14th, but that doesn't mean that it will be re-protected if the situation beyond WP towards this hasn't changed. It was blocked by Cuchullian initially due to anonymous IP edit warring on both this and on Quinn's article, and then that admin increased it to full protection as registered editors began engaging in the same. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Because editors were warring over edits.
2. Administrators.
3. Protection expires 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC).

Tarc (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a case where they should have just blocked the users who were engaging in the edit warring, especially given their history of such. But anyway, if you're interested, feel free to join in on the discussion! We're working on improving the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Doritogate

if there a article on this controversy why is there not one regarding the Doritogate controversy from 2012? Doritogate was was also a video game controversy regarding the gaming press.78.137.5.26 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to start one at WP:AFC. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is why these should be treated within one of the primary articles such as Video game journalism or Video game culture and not stand alone stubs.

I am pushing to include Doritogate as part of the issues leading to this in a larger article, a sign of the overall chasm between gamers and game journalism. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be part of the background section, I agree. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 September 2014 (uncontroversial)

Please can some admin go to [26] and redo the refs. The article relies too much on bare links. KonveyorBelt 22:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no rush to fix barelinks at this stage before we've hashed out the rest. Yes, it would be nice to format them better but that is so far down the priority level as long as WP:V is otherwise met. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In which case, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Further mainstream coverage.

Several days on GamerGate is receiving widening mainstream media coverage, including from the business press.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

Furthermore the full chat log from the IRC channel #burgersandfries has been released and partially analyzed (inasmuch as it's 3,756 pages, in 10-point type, of chaotic overlapping IRC conversations).

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/08/zoe-quinns-screenshots-of-4chans-dirty-tricks-were-just-the-appetizer-heres-the-first-course-of-the-dinner-directly-from-the-irc-log/

http://puu.sh/boAEC/f072f259b6.txt

These citations should be folded into the article as appropriate. Thank you. kencf0618 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

At first glance, I don't think WeHuntedTheMammoth meets WP:RS guidelines. The New Yorker article sure does, though. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The first article raises concerns about the wider impact this may have on the gaming industry as it enters the holiday season. That may be noteworthy. As for WeHuntedTheMammoth, I agree that it shouldn't be used as a source, but Ars Technica has referenced it and the logs themselves in this article: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/ Willhesucceed (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

For Ars Technica to reference We Hunted The Mammoth is... impressive. WHTM is a self-published blog by an individual with a clear axe to grind, and it's not even in Alexa's top 100,000. They might as well be citing a post on Tumblr or FreeThoughtBlogs. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely tag the Ars Tech for a very useful source. Let's just make sure we don't add our own opinions on that. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While this is not necessarily 'coverage' of the GamerGate issue The Escapist posted revised Journalistic Guidelines in wake of articles that they produced during this whole event it can be found here http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate.5 I know it's an editorial piece so it may not be considered factual but we may want to include it in the page as a consequence of the event. CrypticChronos (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Editorial pieces can be used for documenting reactions and similar things, so it is still potentially useful for THAT, at least. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Another piece (albeit slighty biased, but hits the historical points fairly) from Salon. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is one of the best, most even-handed accountings of the issue that I've read so far. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Even-handed"? Are you serious? The article barely even mentions the existence of the gamergate cause, and doesn't even scratch the surface of the list of grievances. There's nothing about the history of discontent with gaming press (even Doritogate, mentioned elsewhere on the Talk page, wasn't the start of it, not by a long shot). Even the article title shows a clear bias, "quoting" an exclusionary message that wasn't said or even implied by anyone. People presenting the argument that Sarkeesian is effectively "trolling" gamers, are painted as sexist. It's flat out a hit piece. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another article from the Telegraph: [27] , particularly good here that it helps thread the needle on why Quinn is being verbally criticized as well as identifying the problem of how the changing nature of video game audiences might be part of the larger picture. (again, it's got a bit of a bias, but tries to present a rationale for the other side) --MASEM (t) 17:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, again, I think this is an excellent source. We're starting to get better sources that are actually analyzing the issue and talking to identifiable people involved in the matter, rather than just stating opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Another reliably-sourced article, from Marketplace: [28]. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinionated, but reliable: Flavorwire and RH Reality Check. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Flavorwire looks to me like the internet equivalent of a tabloid; I don't see why it would be considered an RS. RH Reality Check is "Reproductive & Sexual Health and Justice News, Analysis and Commentary"; anything they have to say about other social issues is well beyond their purview, so I again don't see why it would be reliable. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent follow-up pieces all. Thanks, everyone! kencf0618 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Asian Age weighs in, stating "That video games are sexist and their view of women objectionable isn’t news, but the response to Anita’s work has showed just how extreme opinions are pertaining to it."

The Telegraph posts another article, stating "Evil women are coming to take away your computer games. At least, that’s the message that a group of angry young men have been articulating on the internet in the past few weeks. According to them, these games – once a haven for socially awkward teenage boys – are being ruined by the monstrous regiment. Their livid arguments and the vitriolic online abuse, all gathered on the internet under the hashtag “gamergate”, is another example of the way in which women are targeted on the internet."

Writing for Forbes, Paul Tassi discusses the inherent issues with asking for "objective" gaming media.

Opinionated take in The Auburn Citizen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Another excellent reliable source, The Washington Post weighs in. Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.” NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Another source: The Guardian interviews Zoe Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Le Monde has now reported on this: link. How do we handle non-English sources? Willhesucceed (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• We can use foreign sources no problem, reference-wise we just source them withe the |lang= tag in the cite template. If we do want to actually quote them, or if we need to use a carefully worded statement from that that we'd add a |Quote= in the cite template, we may want to have someone with proficiency in French to provide the proper translation, but otherwise we can use something like Google Translate to get a broad picture. I've looked through it and there's probably a few choice quotes for the pro-GG side, and as such it might be worthwhile to find a translator to do the whole thing for us. (I forget if WP does have a volunteer group for that). --MASEM (t) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• • This is the first non-English coverage I've seen. I also note that the article hasn't appeared in any other Wikis to date, even as a stub. kencf0618 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed per BLP

This sentence needs a reliable citation or it will be removed per WP:BLP: "Some of the information alleged a level of impropriety in her relationship with a video game journalist from Kotaku." Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Kotaku source that follows presently ref 8, (in which its editor spoke out to clear the air) has the specific information that should be used for that. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I also put in [29] which specifically talks about the release of info by the ex. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm still a bit concerned about the wording here. According to our wording, the information itself alleged the impropriety. The New Yorker article only says that the information exposed their relationship. It's entirely possible they had a relationship without any impropriety. We should probably change the wording to say that the ex-boyfriend alleged the impropriety (or that twitter users alleged it, or whoever). Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There is definitely a narrative gap, as at some point the statements towards Quinn went from one person (her ex) to many. As such, I do not believe we can actually state the ex made the impropriety claim. (I have no , nor ever plan to, read or look for the ex's statements) --MASEM (t) 00:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, wait here we go [30] " One of his most contentious (and unproven) accusations: that she slept with a gaming journalist at Kotaku who helped secure favorable coverage and publicity for her game Depression Quest." Will add and touch wording --MASEM (t) 00:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good find. What do you think about changing "Some of his information alleged..." to "Some of his post alleged..." or simply "He alleged"? Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me fix , but want to be clear there was more than just the impropriety allegations in his message (based on the NYorker source) --MASEM (t) 01:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, her ex said that she slept with the journalist, but didn't say that it was in return for favorable coverage. (At least not in the post that this is referring to). That was a separate interpretation made by other people. - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel like those two sentences were very weaselly. The ex accused her of cheating on him with video game journalists and developers. The gamers were the ones who alleged professional impropriety; the ex's post was purely about personal impropriety. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I added the word "personal" to the bf's claims. it was the larger crowd that made the claims of professinal impropriety, but I don't think we need to state that; the statement from Kotaku should be clear that it was to clear up the professional side. As we want to stay out of the weeds of all the accusations, I don't think we need to explicitly state that others accused her of professional improprietary (that's a statement ripe for BLP issues) , as long as we talk about what Kotaku said immediately followed by the larger picture as is done now. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can write the article without noting the accusations being thrown around by the various folks involved, given that the claims of corruption and the claims of her detractors being misogynists (which is presently in the article) are both pretty central to the whole thing. Neither are very nice, and both need to be treated very carefully, but as long as we make it clear that these are accusations being thrown around by involved parties and not fact, we should be okay, I think. The nature of the original allegations is, honestly, pretty weaselly here as well; we shouldn't soften what it was. A big part of the reason why the social justice folks see this as misogyny is because the original post by her ex was reporting on her infidelity, which they perceived as slut shaming. I think understanding that context is important to understanding what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Talking about the bf's claims about personal impropriety, and then immediately following that up with a disclaimer from Mr. Totilo of professional impropriety, without introducing the source of any allegations of professional impropriety first, seems to me like confusing at best and a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the bf's claims at worst. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Focus of lead

It seems that most of the mainstream media coverage that has come out in the last day or so has focused more on the harassment campaigns than the alleged improprieties. The lead should be updated to reflect this as it currently doesn't mention this at all. Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It does need to be better summarized, but I think that will come with the revamping of the article once unlocked. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We need to avoid WP:RECENTISM, as people have (repeatedly) noted. We've seen changing press coverage day by day (and it isn't all about the harassment campaigns; I've seen a number of articles today which were about the whole "gaming journalism is corrupt" thing), we are not supposed to breathlessly change articles every single day because of whatever is coming out that day, otherwise we'd have major article instability. We should, again, as others have noted, try to keep taking a step back and the long view of things. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should not try and guess. We need to document the chain of events, so that all of this chaos makes perfect sense. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh, its not old enough for "recentism" to apply!!! its an astroturf campaign to generate harassment. what does apply is that the first coverage, as in most "breaking news", was wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The topic is far more than just the harassment aspect. This has been an event long brewing and just needed something to spark it. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The tenor of the discussion has clearly changed in a matter of days, sharply and repeatedly, over the last 4 weeks. For an internet drama of this sort, that is absolutely "old enough for recentism to apply". Also, I wish you would stop repeating this ridiculous "astroturfing" assertion that has no basis in reality. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

How To Astroturf A Controversial Article Despite Numerous Objections

0. have admin rights. 1. get in fast, write the original article. 2. lock it down. demand that any changes should require consensus. 3. bog down everything in procedural details. 4. enjoy your opinion piece masquerading as wiki article for weeks 5. lazy journalists use it as a primary source (no attribution), and now you can cite them.

I am not making any accusations. I am not saying that's what happened here. But this is a pattern I very much do not want to see happen. It's a bug.

Proposal: until we have consensus, trim the article down to a 5-line stub stating the basic facts. We can have a proper article when it blows over. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Really I think the big thing which sticks out to me right now is Leigh Alexander (conflict of interest, as she writes for one of the accused parties) and the bit about 4Chan with Zoe at the end. It has some other issues, but I think that the latter is probably given undue weight at the moment given the brevity of the article and the former is, well, not actually a RS in this case. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed stub article:

GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game culture controversy[1] centered on the ethics of video game journalism, especially accusations of use of personal relationships to obtain favourable reviews and awards in gaming industry,[2] and a debate over the increasing number of cultural critiques of video games from feminist and other perspectives.[3][4][5][6]

<Background>

In August 2014 personal, private and sensitive information of the video game developer Zoe Quinn was posted to the internet by an ex-boyfriend.[7] His information included allegations regarding a level of impropriety in her relationship with a video game journalist from Kotaku.[8][9][10] Kotaku editor-in-chief Stephen Totillo stated that the writer had not written anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship and had never reviewed her games.[10]

The incident led to broader allegations on social media that games developers and gaming media are too often closely connected and that cultural criticism of video games has led to an increasing focus on social representation and cultural meaning in games by some video games writers.

Basically, the first few lines from the current article, up until it becomes a matter of opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.20.112 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The "ethics" angle is a poorly-constructed sideshow by internet trolls to deflect from the real harassment that Ms. Quinn and others have been on the receiving end of. That is the only real direction that this article can go. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While it might be a sideshow, it is a valid discussion point; the way I think we need to treat this, specifically in handling the GG side, is to note that not everyone from that side is involved in the harassment, just the most vocal, and that the rest do have these opinions about the changing face of gaming. It would be wrong for us without any source to back it up to assume that the ethics aspects were created to deflect the real issue, and we do have to report on the #notyourshield side of this to keep it balanced. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how Wikipedia works to much, but Tarc, I think there might be good reason for you to not participate in the GamerGate topic. You continuously slander people who are on the side of GG and provide your point of view, multiple times, as complete fact. You seem to be incredibly invested in one side of this and are doing your hardest to try to make this about harassment, which GamerGate participants have actively tried to fight against. This is the reason why I continue to say deleting this will be best, because of the Media v Common voice aspect, where sources will heavily be slandering gamergate, and because you will continuously have people trying to actively slander the people from GamerGate. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the reliable sources don't agree with you that "GamerGate participants have actively tried to fight against" the harassment. Indeed, the reliable sources state that misogynistic harassment has been a central part of the controversy. If you don't like the fact that we base our articles on reliable sources, then you just fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed that before, and it was a reply to you. How do you base an article off of something that was made to be AGAINST the media? How do you represent what it actually was and what its goals were to do? Honest question. Do you be intellectually dishonest and say that the side that isn't able to give 'reliable sources' is just going to get slandered? I thought wikipedia was for actual information. Currently this article is going back to the days of school where Wikipedia was outright banned because of misinformation. You know in that IRC chat that people keep bringing up, that many chatters in there were telling the guys who wanted to see harm from Zoe to shut up? You know there is a new hashtag, well a small one since its working, of #literallywho, which is us trying to push back against what the anti-GG'ers are trying to push on the GG people? Honestly, it is so apparent about the amount of bias being pushed in this article, and it is sickening. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an alternative media platform. We publish what is verifiable in reliable sources. This concept is fundamental to the very idea of Wikipedia. We aren't about anyone "pushing back" against anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well then why are these articles that are pointing and saying that GamerGate are being allowed? They aren't verifiable. They may be from a reliable source, but from just a little bit of digging, you can see that the movement is currently trying to pull away from that, since it isn't about it, but these things keep getting pushed on GG. So why are they still allowed? I can see now that if Reliability and Verifiability are pushed on articles, then the article could be written from a moderate position, since many of the 'facts' that the anti-GG people push are not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Again: the thing to do right now is to put up a tiny, neutral article containing just the bare basics, wait until the dust settles fully, somebody reputable does a real writeup. Every additional page view is reputation damage to Wikipedia, at this point. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We are trying (and have) found articles that attempt to strip away the harassment stuff to get to the core of what the GG side is trying to bring forth (transparency, etc.) so that when we can re-edit this article we can provide a fair view of that side. We are very much aware of concerns both on WP and off that this can easily be twisted against the GG side, and that will be as much avoided as we can when we rework this. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct; there are people who state that GamerGate is about these other things; there are many other people who state that GamerGate is about misogynistic harassment. We will present both POVs in this article in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I thank both of yall for yall's responses, and it is nice to know that it wont be twisted. But honestly, don't you see a problem here with basing this, "present both POVs in this article in proportion to their prominence in reliable ", off of a controversy that is against the media? Isn't there some protocol for this or something, because it would easily tend to skew one way when the reliable sources have control over what they want to label their opposition. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would correct NbSB there - because clearly the weight of RSes here is on the anti-GG side; we will try to balance out the coverage as best as possible, with the understanding that the media does have a weight against the questionable acts that the GG side has reportedly done (eg the death threats) but without also trying to make sure those that have been targets aren't put on pedestals either. The case is less about the specifics of who did what but the conflicting philosophies at work, and that's what we need to try to find a balance for. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well once again you have covered all the bases that I was bringing up, Masem, thank you. I will see if I can dig up any reliable sources myself that can be used for the article. Are there any places to see what exactly constitutes 'Reliable'? PseudoSomething (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I would note that Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not call for "balance" but for placing due weight on each POV in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. If there is an argument that the reliable sources themselves are biased, that is an interesting argument and should be presented, but as Gamaliel notes, we're not here to right great wrongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I mean, in the sense that we have sources that I would consider slightly biased towards one side (typically, against GG) but have done a considerable effort to explain the situation before they add their opinion on it. We can use those reasonably balanced sources to build the article. What is clear is that we should not be considering the viewpoints held by GG as WP:FRINGE, and we have sources that can give their views as reasonable amount of coverage of the other side. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point, but Wikipedia does not and cannot set out to correct the mistakes of the world. If the reliable sources are wrong or biased, it is up to other reliable sources to deal with the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I wouldn't want Wikipedia to have to try to correct everything, but I would hope that, since this is such a weird situation (The 'Reliable sources' are one of the sides), it would at least have some extra consideration on how the article is wrote. I am not talking about taking GG's side, but I am talking about a moderate position that informs what the role of GG was to gamers, and what the press reported. Like I told Masem though, I will see if I can dig up some reliable sources, I just don't know what fully constitutes 'Reliable'. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to view the media as a monolith. There are many reliable sources with many different viewpoints. If some of the RSes are on one "side", surely there are some on the other. If not, that is generally an indication that either the issue is not significant enough to document in Wikipedia because collectively RSes do not deem it worthy of covering all sides, or because the side in question is a fringe viewpoint that Wikipedia should not consider. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well I will see if I can find anything that can provide the view from the other side, I am sure some of the independent outlets (Like woodroar commented) should have some. Thank you Gamaliel. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS has everything you're looking for. As far as the whole media thing goes, there are reliable independent media outlets that present views outside the mainstream media, but it takes a certainly amount of persistence to stay afloat and gain a positive reputation. It's like indie video games: how many indie devs are able to maintain their success year after year? Sadly, not many. Woodroar (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I will read over that for a bit and get familiar with it. Your right on your explanation of it though, that is a really relevant metaphor. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous RSs which state that the claims of misogyny are simply false, so claiming that the RSs don't include that point of view is simply false. I mean, an article from freaking Taiwan even talked about why the gamers were so enraged. It is our job to present a NPOV. I dunno why people continue to claim that there are no RSs on why gamers were upset when there are a large number of them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources discuss the issue of misogyny as central to this controversy. I have repeatedly listed them above and we can actually add a couple now (The Telegraph, The New Yorker, Marketplace, etc.) Please present your similar list of reliable sources which declare that this controversy has nothing to do with misogyny. Once again, note that the NPOV policy requires that we weight viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, Forbes, Slate (which even notes how ill-researched some of these supposed reliable sources are, which, of course, means... they're not fact checked, and ergo, not reliable)... heck, Kotaku's own press release defending Grayson revealed that people were concerned about corruption. There are issues of systematic bias here; we're inherently reporting on a group who is complaining about being maligned by the media, using reports by the media. Many of the pieces are, as Slate notes, poorly researched. This is a problem. This is a problem both because it means that many of these supposedly "reliable sources" are not, in fact, reliable, and it is a problem because we're dealing with the gaming media reporting on itself. As the person here themselves noted, and as is noted over in RS, one problem is a lack of independent sources and lazy journalism - when you look at these things, how many of these folks are demonstrating that they have done their research, and are not merely reporting what other people are reporting? How many of them have attempted to look at the claims made by Zoe Quinn that it is all misogyny before repeating those claims? That's an issue. If a source claims that the whole thing is about misogyny, and other sources point out that that is wrong, and actually point out evidence that it is wrong, that is bad news for the source claiming it is all misogyny, because it implies that it may not be reliable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the dozens of reliable sources which say it's about misogyny are wrong, therefore we should ignore them. Quite.

That's not how Wikipedia works, and I again suggest that you read the verifiability policy and the NPOV policy. What you think of a reliable source's opinion is not relevant and we don't make decisions like the one you're suggesting. When two or more reliable sources conflict, we don't take it upon ourselves to decide which is correct - rather, we report each of their points of view based upon their prevalence in reliable sources.

If the majority of reliable sources hold a particular point of view about a subject, that is the point of view which predominates in that subject's Wikipedia article. It does not matter if you think all those sources are wrong. That's not our judgment to make. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, I'd just like to note that the recent coverage (e.g. the links to the Telegraph, New Yorker and Marketplace you posted above) is from the mainstream media, not from gaming media. Therefore concerns about bias in the gaming media shouldn't apply. If the claim is that all mainstream media sources are biased... well, that's starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. In any case, policies like WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE make clear that we have to base our articles on what the balance of the reliable mainstream sources say. If all (or almost all) the reliable sources are saying the same thing, it's not our job to argue with them and say something different. Robofish (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're missing my point. My point is that many sources aren't reliable due to poor fact checking, and we also have to combat systemic bias (which is something that Wikipedia actually has an entire project devoted to). Also, the Telegraph article that you linked to doesn't support your point of view at all; it notes that Zoe Quinn claims all of these things... while the GamerGaters say otherwise, and point towards concerns with journalistic integrity. In fact, if you look at that article, it is reporting on what Zoe Quinn said, with some notes of what the other side said which contradicts what she claims. The person who wrote the article was interviewing Zoe Quinn primarily, but they fact checked it, and when they went outside of Zoe Quinn, the people she contacted said the exact opposite thing that Zoe Quinn said. That is how you're supposed to do things like this - you aren't just supposed to ask Zoe Quinn what she thinks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium, honest question, I am looking at the guy who wrote the New Yorker Article. It seems, before he made his Patreon private, he was funding Mattie Brice, who is fully against GamerGate. Would this still make the source reliable? PseudoSomething (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And now we've devolved to basically chasing rabbit holes, Glenn Beck chalkboard-style. It's not a compliment when your movement begins to sound like Alex Jones on a conspiracy-theory rant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It was an honest question, since it seems there is some conflict on interest in that article. Its not even chasing rabbit holes, that is pretty blatant. I am just wondering if it makes it un-reliable since he has ties to people already fighting against GG. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And here's an honest answer: giving money to another games journalist who expressed an opinion about something that you disagree with does not create unreliability or a conflict of interest. You're welcome. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How does it not, though? That means they are supporting their ideals and their opinions, if not holding the same ones. There is a very big chance that if you are supporting someone like that, that you are going to write what is best for them, not for the news. I am not gonna keep pushing it since I don't know all the ways of WP, but that seems like a conflict on interest. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be a whole lot of people involved in this issue who don't seem to understand journalism. Every journalist has opinions and that does not disqualify them as journalists. Do you think sports journalists aren't often fans of the sports they cover? Do you think political journalists don't hold any political opinions? Do you think gaming journalists don't have opinions about the games they write about? Every review of a video game ever published is an opinion — it's a subjective statement of the writer's views of that particular game. I don't know what you honestly expect - do you think journalists just literally don't have opinions about anything? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, journalist can have opinions, they would be robots if not. They can like and not like games. The only thing is, the New Yorker article could of been written the way it did not to report the situation, but to uphold the views of the people he funds. Oh well if so. I could always bring up the Leigh Alexander [31] also, and her comment about the other side of the issue of twitter. Do these seriously not make a difference in writing an information article? I am workig on getting sources for the other side also, but it kinda has to wait till later. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. What you have here is an unsubstantiated allegation which doesn't count for much when weighed against the general credibility of The New Yorker. As sources go on Wikipedia, The New Yorker is a gold standard RS. Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying the The New Yorker is a bad publication, but that specific writer seems to have some stake in this. Many of those articles listed have writers that have come out and either insulted GG or talked down to them, then went and wrote an article. Are these articles worthy of being referenced, when they could be made just to smear the opposition? PseudoSomething (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, to go with WP:RS, which you linked to me earlier, wouldn't sources that have stakes in them like that fall under questionable sources, since much of it falls under personal opinion? PseudoSomething (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The alleged conflict of interest is unsubstantiated, and even if it were, it's pretty slim to begin with. The New Yorker's reputation is such that I would say their judgement and reputation for accuracy and fact-checking overrides even a proven conflict of interest of this relative insignificance. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with you, especially since he hid his patreon as the article came out, but I don't have much say past that with my newness. I would point at the Time article more heavily though, since the writer basically said she was only going to write one side of it while antagonizing the people following GG. twitter. While that also seems incredibly unprofessional, it seems like you wouldn't be able to get any moderate position in her article. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That Twitter post is also pretty flimsy thing to use to attempt to write off a major source like Time. Sometimes the major media does not present things the way you want them to be presented, but that isn't necessarily bias or a conflict of interest, it's just a different assessment than yours. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason I say it is important is that it is straight from the writer, and, paraphrasing here, but "Ha, I am only going to write bad about you". But, I guess under WP:RS, "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Not much else I can state until I read over them, and if I find any faults. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Others do not share your assessment of the tweet or your conclusion that it is an indication of bias. It would be inappropriate to disqualify an RS based on the unsubstantiated opinions and conclusions of editors. Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not even when she wrote this quote from another article she wrote about the situation? "These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had. " \ gamasutra. Same person, same mindset. I am trying to figure out where the line between biased and unusable starts.PseudoSomething (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, per WP:RS, biased sources are usable, but only with care. All sources are biased to some extent; it is our job as Wikipedians to use what is useful and discard the rest. I don't think this is a major conflict of interest, though; while the fact that they hid their Patreon immediately before posting the article looks bad, that's two links out in the chain. At some point, everyone is linked to everyone. Frankly, I'd be more likely to attribute any bias in the article not to the fact that he is friends with such a person, but simply the fact that they are likely to be sympathetic to the point of view that some woman is being persecuted by a bunch of neckbeard gamers; that angle on the story would appeal to a lot of folks at the New Yorker, and thus they're very susceptible to reporting something from that point of view. It is The New Yorker, after all; look at who their target audience is. Such a flimsy link is not enough to create a conflict of interest, I think, and it is usable as a RS, provided we take care to avoid letting their bias into Wikipedia. As the article clearly takes a stance on it, it is obviously biased, but we can still make use of it potentially. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand journalism at all. The Telegraph article isn't "contradicting" Zoe Quinn's statements. It's properly presenting each side of the argument. The journalist is not deciding which one is correct. The writer contacted Quinn and contacted "representatives" of "#GamerGate" (how representative they are, hard to be sure) and provided each of their takes on the issue.

The article supports my point of view because it clearly demonstrates that the question of misogyny is central to the mainstream debate over this controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they are central to the controversy; it is Zoe Quinn and her supporters' point of view that it is all about misogyny. I'm not sure why you think I think otherwise. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And it is also the predominant, mainstream point of view - not that "it is all about misogyny" but that misogyny is a key driver of the controversy. Glad to know we agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The predominent, mainstream point of view is "nerds are fighting on the internet, and we don't care," as is almost always the case with things like this. But that pretty much goes without saying. :P As for the idea that we should include in the article that it is driven by misogyny as a factual statement; we should clearly note that it is a point of view on the issue. The trouble is that, well, it is a point of view on the issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're correct that we should not state it as fact that it is driven by misogyny — however, we must state that it is widely considered to be driven by misogyny. "The predominant, mainstream point of view" refers to the point of view most widely adhered to by the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Widely considered by whom, exactly? That's not supported by any RS. Zoe Quinn and her supporters consider it to be driven by misogyny (or at least claim to believe such). There aren't any polls indicating that "the public" has any particular stance on it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Widely considered, based upon the viewpoints expressed in reliable sources. I have already listed the stack of reliable sources several times. There's even more to add now, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, neither the Al Jazeera article nor the Slate article you cite state that misogyny isn't a central part of the controversy. In fact, the Al Jazeera article's very title is: "#GamerGate: Misogyny or corruption in the gaming community?" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Judging by the continuing walls of text, this is going to take a great while longer, both to reach consensus, and to compile the eventual article. I won't be surprised if you guys are still warring a month from now and not a word gets written.
2. It is a developing event. There will likely be articles written by trusted sources a week or two from now. Maybe some new dirt gets dug up and changes the paradigm completely (thought exercise: would it change the framing of the debate if there is a lawsuit? Somebody goes to jail? I think it would).
3. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking, and so is the pageview counter. We're likely near peak traffic for this page. People will come, view the page ONCE, and go away thinking, 'wow, Wikipedia is taking a side on this.' They won't read the Talk page. They won't access the page again at a later date. They are in the majority.
4. In fact, they'd be right. By leaving a biased article up and sitting on your asses, Wikipedia is making a political statement by default.
5. Rather than them walking away thinking Wikipedia is violating NPOV, I would rather they see a stub article. Mention that the game industry alleges misogyny (1 sentence). Mention allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest (1 sentence). Leave out all the details. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:WRONGVERSION - as long as we have no outright BLP problems, and completely hoax information, we are not going to rush to fix it, and we don't worry about WP's page counts. We want it right at the end, not the now. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic. Crowd-sourced dismissive answers on tap. We've-heard-it-before-so-it's-not-a-problem. Got it. 14.200.20.112 (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Given how many people on either side want to get their hands on to edit this article, claiming it's biased both ways, I'm pretty certain that WRONGVERSION is the best way to go right now. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)