Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Nonsense

• The controversy, originally termed the "quinnspiracy", adopted the Twitter hashtag "Gamergate" - a controversy cannot "adopt" anything. There are one or more words missing in that sentence but I can't work out which because of the sheer amount of posturing that is going on in the article and sources. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This needs fixing, yes, but read the archive to understand why things are in the current state. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • So we should fix it. As with another reference to the archives that you make below, thanks but no thanks. I'm approaching this as a complete outsider: I really do know nothing about this subject other than that it has become a tediously repetitive feature of various drama boards, which almost certainly means that the archives are full of people shouting at each other while promoting their POVs. Think of me as someone who doesn't know the talk page exists and is trying to use WP for the purpose for which it was intended, ie: to gain knowledge. - Sitush (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      • There is no easy fix here. If you want to know why there is no easy fix, the archives provide the answer. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Seems pretty easy to me: adopt a correct usage of the English language. Failing that, if people agree that it is a problem but can't agree on a fix then RfC is the solution. What we shouldn't do is leave it hanging when it makes a nonsense of the article. - Sitush (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
        • And who originally termed it the quinnspiracy? - Sitush (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
          • And who originally termed it the quinnspiracy No idea. Our sources don't say, and it's probably not important anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No individual can be credited with coining Quinnspiracy. Like much of early Gamergate, this was the terminology used on Twitter and then it went viral. Even if the technology existed for us to sort through tens of thousands of Tweets from August 2014, I'm not sure what knowing who first used this term would reveal. It's a neologism. In large part, because there was no collusion demonstrated between Quinn and journalists over reviewing her game, the term Gamergate became more popular in the social media discussion because it was elastic and could mean whatever the speaker wanted it to mean. That's been the primary problem with this article, defining what the term means, whether it is a movement or just a hashtag, if it is a group, who belongs to it, etc. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I asked about quinnspiracy because we attribute the first usage of gamergate, which seems equally trivial. I mean, perhaps the latter coining isn't in fact trivial but, if so, we don't explain why and the guy seems thereafter to be a bit player in the article. I'm more concerned about my main issue: there is some sort of code going on here which the regulars editors obviously understand but - I promise you - the casual reader, such as myself, does not. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article is pretty impenetrable. It's like the report of a sporting event which is only understandable if you had watched the match. I actually haven't attempted to edit the article except a handful of reverts of vandalism. I'm just hoping that maybe in a few more months this subject won't be so contentious but I never expected it to last this long in the first place. I gave it two months, tops, then it would be over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• a character modeled after Sarkeesian and based on multiple women involved in the controversy seems no better. The character is either modeled after Sarkeesian or based on multiple women. Unless perhaps we're referring to a character that is a physical doppelganger of Sarkeesian but a portmanteau of the experiences of many? - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This can be both. Not a problem. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it is contradictory. We could say "modeled after Sarkeesian and other women involved in the controversy" or "modeled after various women involved in the controversy". I'm not even sure who claims it is so based - the show's writer(s)? I watch very, very little television but don't TV shows like this usually have a disclaimer about not being based on real people etc? - Sitush (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Sitush: I watched the episode and read a few reviews of it; the character in question was modeled on (looks like) Sarkeesian, but they used experiences from other victims of GG. We could say "a character with a resemblance to Sarkeesian and with experiences drawn from other victims of the controversy"? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Do any of the reviews actually say this? I've checked an old episode broadcast by a UK channel and it has disclaimers at both the start and end that state the characters, storylines etc are fictional, based on no-one etc. Yes, that might be a legal artifice but if it is what the producers claim then it would be difficult to deny. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Ars Technica describes it this way: "The character Raina Punjabi (played by actress Mouzam Makkar) resembles Feminist Frequency host Anita Sarkeesian in no uncertain terms (hair pulled back, giant earrings, shown in online videos giving monologues). Punjabi is also frequently maligned because, in Ice-T's words, 'a lot of gamers think she slept her way into the business,' a not-so-veiled reference to the spurious genesis of the GamerGate hashtag in the first place." [1]. As for the disclaimer, are you sure it says 'based on no-one' in the U.K.? It does not say that in the U.S. "The following characters and events are fictional" is a different claim than "based on no-one." Dumuzid (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I thought it said that at the end but I'm not arguing, nor going back round to my mate's to see it. I have no idea of the standing of Ars Technica but there is no way we can use Wikipedia's voice to make a claim that the show's producers do not make, and they go out of their way (we can agree) to say that it is fictional. I'll set things up to record the next episode here if anyone is that concerned about the semantics. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
            • I believe StG88ぬ会話 proposed a workable solution above. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Then you believe incorrectly. At a pinch, we could say "Ars Technica says that ..." - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources all agree that the character resembles Sarkeesian:

• "The character Raina Punjabi (played by actress Mouzam Makkar) resembles Feminist Frequency host Anita Sarkeesian in no uncertain terms" - Ars Technica
• "In the fictionalized account of GamerGate on SVU, a female developer named Raina Punjabi, with her hoop earrings and blunt attitude, is clearly an unsubtle stand-in for Sarkeesian." - Observer
• "The fictional Raina Punjabi is the creator of "nonviolent" game Amazonian Warriors and a chimera of Gamergate targets: a non-traditional female developer who fights misogynist accusations of promiscuity and wears Anita Sarkeesian’s trademark hoop earrings." - The Verge

Absent any sources disagreeing with that I think we can avoid any awkward wording like that. Strongjam (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? Those are all the potential sources, including offline reviews etc? I'm still wary of directly contradicting the producers, so maybe Although a fictional account, some reviewers believe the character was based on the physical appearance of X and was a composite of the opinions held by several women involved in the affair. Or something similar. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency Twitter account called the episode "sickening" Is the Twitter account not operated by Sarkeesian? If she is the sole operator then there is no need to mention the account name. Also, apropos my previous point above, if the character is modeled on more experiences than just those of Sarkeesian then there probably is no need even to have this sentence: she is scarcely a neutral observer and we'd be better using the opinion of some respected TV critic. Should there be no commentary from TV critics then, clearly, the veracity or whatever of the portrayal is minor. - Sitush (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but it does clarify what capacity she's speaking from - as an individual or as a critic. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Not really. I've no idea which "side" is "critic" because "gamergate" is not clearly defined as being one side or the other. That said, Sarkeesian's opinions are by definition individualistic. If she is speaking as an officer of some organisation then we can just refer to the organisation, otherwise we just refer to her (it is either her voice or the organisation's voice). - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear whether Sarkeesian is the only author of Tweets that come from that account. Feminist Frequency is a production that involves other people. Sarkeesian is the main spokesperson and driving force but she is not the only person associated with this video series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, we should drop her name and just say that the tweet originated from the account. We should also amend the earlier mention of Feminist Frequency to bring clarity to the relationship. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Gamergate supporters subjected other victims to similar harassment ... I am still at a loss, having read the article three times now. We say that gamergate is a controversy and as such it must involve people who hold differing views. Thus, "gamergate supporters" makes no sense: people do not support controversies but rather take a view on them. I suspect also that victims should be people. - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is related to the problem with what to call GG (re: first bullet point above). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Many names are given without any explanation of why their opinions are relevant, eg: Nathaniel Givens and Carter Dotson. Just holding an opinion and being in a position to get it printed does not a reliable source make. We usually try to give context regarding why the opinion of X, Y or Z is relevant and authoritative. - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I quite agree with this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• and was forced from her home out of fear that she would be tracked Eh? Does tracked mean stalked or monitored? Either way, it presumably was not actually happening because her fear was that it might happen, so it is probably less a case of being "forced" than of choosing to do so in order to avoid the possibility. "Forced" is emotive. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This one has gone around and around. Read the archives to get some ideas on the issue here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• democratization of game-making tools I don't think I have ever played a computer game in my 30-odd years in the business, although I've done a lot of coding in my time. What on earth does "democratization" mean in this context? It seems like a soundbite without context. - Sitush (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"Democritization" in this context means 'to make accessible.' It is a fairly widespread, if jargon-ish, usage. For instance: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Dumuzid (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but I think I may have not phrased that well. Democratisation presumes it was not previously accessible (to women?), which is the bit I am struggling with. You know, anyone can go buy or download programming languages and toolkits, together with codebooks, instruction manuals etc - that's how I started. So, it still seems like a soundbite. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the democratization referenced here is two-fold: both the ability to create and market games without a traditional developer or publisher behind one's efforts, as well as the lessening of the coding barrier via tools like Twine. Dumuzid (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought "democratization" didn't have to do with gender but with the proliferation of small, independent game developers as opposed to large corporations who spend years developing multi-million dollar games. Two of the primary targets of Gamergate were independent game developers which was ironic because the party line was that the controversy was about corruption in gaming journalism when it would be the large developers who would have leverage over journalists, not independent game developers who have limited budgets and resources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• policies of prohibiting, or disclosing Patreon contributions - the sentence containing this phrase is gibberish due to grammatical issues. I've no idea what a Patreon contribution might be., - Sitush (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Added a wikilink for Patreon. Dunno if that's enough help. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Phil Fish, who was hacked and doxed Is Fish a robot? Human beings cannot be hacked, although their accounts can be. - Sitush (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't quote policy and guidelines at me, PTF - I can blow you out of the water doing that sort of stuff. I'm not going to edit the article because it is a cesspit. If you know what is going on then you can fix it. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If you find editing the article proper so detestable, I don't see the point in editing its talk page. Besides- I know what's going on, so there's nothing I need to fix. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't and I'd like to see it fixed. That you are blessed with second sight is well, bully for you. That you do not appreciate why I don't want to edit the article but do see merit in contributing on the talk page perhaps demonstrates a certain lack of awareness about how to deal with contentious topics ... but it isn't me who lacks the awareness because I've been dealing here with stuff like this for years. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Saying that someone was hacked is entirely valid english. In fact, it's the language used by our sources. Google for eg. "he was hacked", "she was hacked", "I was hacked" for numerous examples. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• If you cannot see why it is a problem then perhaps you should not be editing here. What was hacked - Facebook, blog, emails, etc? I really couldn't care less if there are a million examples of crap phrasing visible from Google searches. We've got to find a way to bring some sense to this impenetrable mess of an article that is far too reliant on SPA-type accounts. As I said above, we're supposed to be writing for the reader, not each other. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that if saying "John Doe was hacked" is an accurate representation of the preponderance of sources, then it should be used, no matter if it seems improper for stylistic reasons or for imprecision. Dumuzid (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps you, too, need to learn how to write a decent article. Our purpose is to inform, and to do so without reliance on vague statements and crap English should be our goal. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff and I'm increasingly perturbed that so many people do not get it. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I endeavor consistently (with varying degrees of success) to learn how to improve my writing, both on Wikipedia and in other venues. Perhaps I should be topic banned until my learning has ceased. Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: "He/she was hacked" is common English. Almost evey single news article you could ever find that talks about someone's account being hacked will say "they were hacked". This shouldn't even be discussed on the talk page because of how trivial it is; if it's really killing you, just fix it yourself. No one is going to oppose that edit because no one really cares. If you're not going to fix it yourself, don't waste talk page space complaining about it. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that it has been fixed. I don't care that you don't care ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

---

@Sitush: As you say, you're an expert on policy. And as you say, editing the article can be tricky, and if you displease certain editors you may find yourself slimed, smeared, and hounded. Worse, the grapevine hints that Gamergate has plans to replace the article en bloc with one more to its liking, in which case small fixes could be buried by fresh opportunities to punish women in the software industry by discussing their sex lives.

But your observations raise an interesting point on which I, for one, would genuinely like your opinion. On the one hand, we have here a bunch of editors with -- shall we say -- considerable motivation. Let me be generous: not all of these editors are skilled or careful writers. A number of the passages you cite are old, old compromises where, after thousands of words of interminable discussion and countless proposals, bad language was accepted because it did not demonstrably BLP policy and still satisfied Gamergate's fans.

I've made some effort to clean up the worst passages from time to time. So have others -- especially Strongjam, TS, and Aquilion. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it stirs hornets and I find myself smeared or KiA’s or Breitbarted and dragged to Arbcom or wherever. On the whole, being the target is time-consuming and there's always the possibility of a ridiculous result. (Just ask Tarc or TRPoD or NBSB if you won't take my word for it; or visit the Gamergate boards that daily urge someone, anyone, to get me sanctioned by fair means or foul.) So bad grammar, logical inconsistencies, illiteracies -- they all remain because, if Gamergate is going to make life miserable, who wants to secure to themselves more woe over bad grammar?

So, what can we do about this? I tried explicitly to make peace, since I think it's widely unlikely that the editorial stance of this page will change substantially in the foreseeable future, and therefore the present wrangling over de-skewing media bias and rewriting the lede with more ethics and less misogyny is unfruitful. For that, I received piles of threats and no favorable response at all. I’ve pleaded with admins to put a lid on this page, but again this was not well received. If you've got an idea, I'd love to hear it.MarkBernstein (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This. Trying to unpick the grammar before someone immediately reverts has been nigh on impossible. I abandoned any efforts last year and periodically return to see if it has calmed down enough to actually fix an otherwise poor article. There are some reasonable bits, but much of it shouldn't be in this article as it's either very generic (so should be in larger articles where there is context for the various culture war claims) or very specific (in which case we're going into the minutiae of biographical detail, which brings in BLP policy) which has been my stance since day 1. Koncorde (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This is because every word gets parsed so carefully. And after dealing with some of the translation issues and backdoor attempts to include unsupportable things, perhaps this caution is warranted. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, If every word of this article has been parsed so carefully, why is it so incredibly poor to read? Just pick any examples from my opening remarks in this thread. Perhaps the regulars should give it a rest and things might improve? - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To quote MarkBernstein "A number of the passages you cite are old, old compromises where, after thousands of words of interminable discussion and countless proposals, bad language was accepted because it did not demonstrably [violate] BLP policy and still satisfied Gamergate's fans." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

K.I.S.S. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be delightful, if the situation were simple. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I was referring as much to MarkBernstein's overblown message as to the article itself. Make your point and stop, rather than go all round the houses. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

30 pages of archives is not easy to summarize to provide context for complaints made in a vacuum. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? I thought he was just being condescending - that's how it came across. That the archives are so voluminous is unfortunate; that the outcome after all that discussion is this poor is even more so. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps AGF? Otherwise, perhaps you ought look in a mirror. "that the outcome after all that discussion is this poor is even more so" - amen. Perhaps your discussion will help break the logjam. Many of us are leery of touching some of the touchier passages. Their histories are long and painful. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture, most notable for a harassment campaign that sought to drive women and feminist views from the video game industry. That's not grammatical English. It is the lead sentence of the article. Andreas JN466 07:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Gamergate controversy is an ongoing internet debate about sexism in video game culture and the quality of video game journalism that is most notable for a harassment campaign seeking to drive women and feminist views from the video game industry." ? Andreas JN466 08:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Andreas. This has the benefit of at least being English. I would suggest that it could be further improved by being broken into 2 sentences. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• According to Quinn, Gjoni posted the blog in a way calculated to damage her professional reputation Fine, that is what Quinn thinks. What did he say about it? Quinn is scarcely neutral regarding the issue. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Bilby: If the source's wording is much harder wouldn't it have been better to reword instead of reverting? Also what the sources claims and what Gjoni claims aren't mutually exclusive. Wanting to "warn" people of someone, also likely means warning the people in the industry they work in. If I had written "merely warn" I'd understand, but I fail to see the issue here. Brustopher (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that your wording of "Gjoni claimed the blog was meant to warn people of Quinn" is countered by Gjoni in the source. The Boston Magazine does state that Gjoni has sometimes argued that he wrote the Zoe Post as a warning, but it also then states that he described how he crafted the post for "for maximum pain and harm." Expressing one and not the other creates a problem, as it suggests that Quinn and Gjoni are at odds as to why it was written, when the source makes it clear that Quinn's belief that the post was written to damage her reputation was supported by what Gjoni described to the source's author. He may have had other reasons as well, but there doesn't seem to be a conflict. - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I was trying to get the lack of conflict across in my edit, but seem to have failed. It seemed to follow that attracting a bigger audience to a portraying a person very negatively, means bigger damage to a person's professional reputation. But I guess in context it looks a bit like it's meant to be a rebuttal of Quinn's view or vice versa. Would welcome any suggestions for how to reword this properly. Brustopher (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

movement break

Editors have been trying to obfuscate anything dealing with GG in GG's own words because they have argued their side has been marginalized in the press, when really if we simply used that language it would drastically make the language easier while still staying true to a broader range of sources. For example, calling the GG supporters as a "movement" as they and other RSes have called them would make it clear what that group is without dancing around this stuff with the hashtag. We'd still have the need to include all the criticism towards that being called a "movement" from the press, of course, but it would keep us more objective and the article language much simpler to read, making it much easier to explain the diff between that and the broader grouping of anyone just using the hashtag. Trying to force awkward wording to refuse any acknowledgement of one side of the issue. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the movement isn't what is notable. The controversy is. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's very difficult to use some of GG's own words because much of it violates BLP, much of it comes from non-RS, and there is no official organizing body for there to be a spokesperson. There are people who have tried to co-opt GG - e.g. SPJ does not have a single person speaking for GG that is a notable gamer. This on top of the fact that the ethics thing is pretty much debunked in RS as a deflection from criticism of GG. And lastly try to pin anything (a stance, opinion, claim, etc) at all on GG, and someone will cry "no true scotsman." Try to point to GG as a movement, and it's not there. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In no way am I suggesting this change from "GG controversy" to "GG movement" because rightfully, it is the harassment that is the most notable element. But for all purposes of documenting the controversy, and not getting into the weeds of questioning the GG supporters' veracity and motives, sources have clearly documented that the GG supporters consider themselves a movement and it would tons easier in prose to describe as such, instead of dancing around the whole "no true scotsman" thing. TRying to force that issue into the article is creating bias that WP should absolutely not have. We are not supposed to be second guessing what a group says about itself as long as it is documented in a manner we can use. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps what you say is true, but you do know that there have been numerous GG supporter types who come to this page and make us dance to the "no true scotsman" tune using WP policies. What are we to do? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

But how do you call participating in a discussion on 8chan or reddit, for a week or a few months, a member of a movement? If this is a movement, it must be possible to define who is in this movement, how to identify membership. I mean, Occupy WallStreet was easier to define than Gamergate where 99.99% of the participation occurs online in social media, forums and on message boards by, for the most part, anonymous accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Who says movements have to have members in any formal sense of the word? Many have not and many more never will. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then who are you talking about? You've been a stickler for grammar - who matters. (Yet, another thing that has gone around and around in the archives.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Movements are a form of social protest, a group of people speaking out or acting out about something. There must be some way to define what distinguishes someone in a movement and who isn't or the phenomenon isn't a movement. It's the loosest form of social organization but there must be some symbol, text, icon, identity, nationality, cause that brings people together to participate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Try googling "Who is a member of GamerGate?", then filter out the things that are not RS, then spend time figuring out the DUE weight to give what's left. Have fun. Or you can read 30 pages of archives. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not like people haven't spent considerable time and effort trying to deal with this - despite the numerous obstacles. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The obstacles are when we're trying to analyze and include judgement on a plain statement that has been made by the group in question. GG has called themselves a movement, reliable sources have repeated that statement, that should be good enough for us in WP to describe them as that. Yes, many sources call BS on the movement aspect, I don't deny they exist, but trying to force that view is what is making the article obfuscated instead of straight forward and non-judgmental. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Drop the judgment stick. Provide RS that talk about the movement. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, what are the defining characteristics of the movement as backed up by RS? What constitutes membership? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are questions that as a nonjudgemental neutral source, we are not required nor should be trying to evaluate or answer lest we engage in OR or POV. Let the secondary sources make their claims that the movement is bogus, that's acceptable, but from a purely narrative description, we can and should be using the word movement as that is what they call themselves as well as what other RSes refer to it as, even if they process to deride the use of the term. [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that it is what they "call themselves." One of the things that most sources agree on is that it's hard to determine what gamergate is, who it's composed of, and so on; there is no clearly-defined "they" to defer to here. For example, some people within Gamergate (or at least, people identified as being within it by reliable sources) have said that they believe it's a campaign to make Quinn's career crash and burn. When you say "we must go with what these people say as a self-identification, since I, Masem, have personally identified as them as the One True Gamergate and everyone else as external trolls", you're imposing your own view on it; but that's WP:OR. When eg. reliable sources describe Gamergate as the people harassing Quinn, you can't respond by saying "but that's not how these people, who I feel are the real Gamergate, identify Gamergate!", because your initial decision to defer to them as the real true gamergate (and therefore the people who get to define who is a 'member' or what it stands for) is purely based on your personal opinions and not on the sources. I know we've argued over this point before, but it's important for you to realize that you don't have any special insight into what Gamergate "really" is, who it's composed of, or what it stands for -- we have to go for reliable sources for that. And many, many sources say that it's composed of eg. the people harassing Quinn, so you can't then turn around and point to people who aren't harassing Quinn and say "yes, but let's arbitrarily say that these people are the real Gamergate and ask them what they think, then give that more weight." --Aquillion (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

First, citation needed on a statement given by someone clearly identifying themselves as a GG supporter and saying that they are out to ruin Quinn's career, as given by RSes. (Not an RS claiming this is what GG want) I know the logs from before it started that some wanted to do this, and I do not pretend that there aren't malicious people out there that want to ruin Quinn's life, but I have never seen a source that has this as a direct goal of GG since the ethics side was established. When you look to what GG have called themselves as quoted by RSes the only terms we have from their mouths is as a movement or a consumer revolt, and WP has no reason or right to try to second guess this in our voice, period. Trying to play the "no true scotsman" game with this in our prose is original research and taking a point of view. We don't second guess the Occupy Wall Street as a movement from their words, we don't second guess Westboro as a church in their words, we don't second guess Scientology as a religion their words, despite each case having numerous secondary sources stating something else. We have secondary sources that are full of commentary calling BS on GG being a movement, but we also don't know if they are right and we have to document the controversy, not take a side in it. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ars Technica identifies the people in those logs as the people who founded and pushed gamergate, and therefore unambiguously establishes that this was Gamergate's founding goal. This is Gamergate, as quoted by reliable sources. This is what Gamergate says about itself; the excerpts in the logs there are are summarized as follows: "The 4channers express their hatred and disgust towards [Quinn]; they express their glee at the thought of ruining her career; they fantasize about her being raped and killed." This is "the motivations and actions of those who did the most to push #GamerGate into the spotlight." This is is what GG defined itself as, in its own words. Again, you are talking about "the ethics side" and "what GG have called themselves" using a distinction that has virtually no support among reliable sources; there are some sources noting that not everyone (of course) is responsible for harassment, that there are different people involved in the controversy for different reasons, but, as the Ars Technica source says, "the logs show a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism." Jesse Singal, who analyzed what Gamergate proponents were saying in their own words, and spoke to them directly, found that it was fixated on Quinn and Wu and that the people who spoke to bluntly admitted it was primarily about pushing back against progressive politics and feminism in gaming (and notes that they were "very open about this"). We cannot take your personal opinion on who Gamergate is (and therefore who we quote to define it); we must go to reliable sources. The Westboro Baptist Church, in fact, is not particularly defined in its own words in our article on it; it is defined by citing numerous reliable sources that have analyzed its beliefs in depth. The first few words of the introduction describe it as a homophobic, antisemitic hate group, with only a single sentence, much later on, devoted to any aspect of its self-description (noting that it calls itself a Calvinist church; and even that is immediately followed by noting that no mainstream Calvinist organization accepts it.) This is exactly analogous to our lead here. Your argument that we should give additional weight to what you, personally, have identified as Gamergate's self-identification unequivocally violates WP:UNDUE, even putting aside the fact that I feel your opinions here on who Gamergate 'really' is are simply not accurate and not reflected by any consensus among the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that's original research. While we have the logs from Ars Tech, that does not have any positive connection of those users to those that say they represent GG following its creation. (The possibility exists, but there's no proof positive that we can use). The Signal piece, while it definitely does assert in GG's words they are fixated on Quinn and Wu, does not say they're aiming to ruin their lives, and we can't presume that just fighting back against feminism means they are setting out to ruin their lives. Again, the possibility that is the case remains on the table, but the positive prove is not there, so it is original research to claim that some GGers have said in their words they are out to ruin Quinn (or others') lives. There is zero original research to read the given sources that say that GG claim they are a consumer movement or revolt and use those terms, and to use anything else because one might not believe it is original research. Using those words does not endorse that view particularly since we're going to continue to keep the criticism about these claims regardless. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ars Technica describes them as the founders of Gamergate; that is not original research, and I'm puzzled as to how you could think it is. Again, it feels like you are coming to this discussion with a clear vision of what you believe Gamergate to be in your mind (you believe there is a specific, discrete "ethics / consumer revolt organization"), and you're therefore excluding anything that doesn't explicitly talk about that. But it is an unequivocally straightforward reading of Ars Technica's coverage to say that the people in those logs define and represent Gamergate; you are only objecting because it goes against your personal beliefs on what Gamergate is (ie. you are talking about a 'founding'; but Ars Technica makes it clear that those logs are Gamergate's founding, even before it had its hashtag, and you're rejecting that based on your personal definition of Gamergate as some sort of clearly-defined organization.) Most reliable sources agree with Ars Technicas' viewpoint and describe Gamergate as the people who are harassing Quinn (see eg. [11], "Gamergate supporters competed with one another to see how much sensitive or damaging information they could collect and reveal about Quinn"); therefore, we must take that perspective in the bulk of the article. Your insistence that there is a clearly-defined, objectively-agreed-to "Gamergate organization" who speaks for Gamergate and defines what it believes is not supported by any sources, and therefore your repeated argument that we must define Gamergate "in its own terms" is entirely without basis. We do, yes, mention that some people have said that it's about ethics in game journalism; but you are arguing that we should give that position WP:UNDUE weight based on your frequently-expressed personal opinion that those people speak for Gamergate and that the people reliable sources have identified as "gamergate harassers" are not, and that argument is entirely without basis. If you feel that the people most sources have identified as Gamergate are not really representative (if you want proof that they're 'members' of some discrete Gamergate organization), the appropriate place to take that concern is to the news sources themselves. Our duty, as an encyclopedia, is to uncritically and neutrally report their findings, which means that the bulk of our article needs to unequivocally state that Gamergate is centered around harassment; it also means that more fringe viewpoints on what Gamergate is (and who counts as part of it) will get less focus. --Aquillion (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also, as an aside, can we talk about the Westboro Baptist Church comparison a bit more? You've brought it up many, many times, and I feel like I've shot it down cleanly and unequivocally every single time, without really getting an answer from you on it... and yet the next time a discussion comes up, you use the comparison again, no matter how many times I point out that it doesn't make sense. I specifically pointed out, above, that we define the Westboro Baptist Church according to what reliable sources say (even when that is clearly in derogatory terms that it wouldn't embrace, like calling it a homophobic, antisemitic hate group), and that we give a single sentence of mention in the lead to its self-identification, with heavy clarifications that nobody accepts it. Can we at least agree that your analogy there is bad? We represent controversial topics based on what reliable sources say; this is reflected in our coverage of Gamergate, which mentions ethics but makes it clear that it has been widely dismissed, and which gives primary focus to the way reliable sources have described it. I doubt we're going to reach a perfect agreement on everything, but can we at least agree that I've answered this aspect of your argument adequately? If you feel that there's enough reliable sources to support your view of Gamergate, that's fine, we can keep discussing the sources, but I think it's important to establish that, by both policy and practice, we represent organizations according to reliable sources, not according to their self-description or how they want to be seen. These things usually overlap (in that it would be rare for an organization's statements about itself to get no coverage from reliable sources); but in cases where the coverage is minimal or nonexistent, those aspects are going to be minimal or nonexistent in our article as well. Despite your continued insistence about this, WP:RS contains no special clause giving an organization's description of itself any special weight. --Aquillion (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is also no policy that says we should ignore what a group says about themselves in favor of the predominant view. But you do have WP:IMPARTIAL (part of NPOV) that says "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." Additionally, while BLP does not immediately apply, its intent means that if a group says something about themselves that other sources state differently, we still stick with the self-identify source over the other sources, though obviously in this case, we need to later include the amount of negative criticism and doubt from the bulk of the sources. The issue when I bring up Westboro is that even if the lead only gives them a 1-sentence self-identifying statement, that's infinitely more than what our present lead gives for self-identification. It immediately sets a stage of blaming GG for everything even though there is no proof of where the harassment is coming from relative to the GG movement. Now, arguably, this article's key topic is not about the group overall, and needs to highlight the harassment because that's the primarily reason this is a notable event. But even still, we fail to give any impartial stance or non-judgement self-identification on the GG movement in the lead, showing exactly which side of the debate this article is written towards. With Westboro, at least it is clear that while they honestly believe they are a church of God, their activities have been heavily criticism as similar to a hate group, and that's tons more impartial than this article. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't ignore what some users of the hashtag say about themselves. However, the RSs also discredit much of what they have to say. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Again, reliable news sources overwhelmingly describe the harassment as originating from Gamergate. Therefore, for our purposes, we must describe it as fact in the article. If you feel that those sources are wrong (if you feel they don't have proof capable of satisfying you), you should take your objection to the sources; but our job is to reflect what they say, not to second-guess them based on your personal evaluation. Likewise, we must rely on those sources to tell us what a group is, what its activities are, who is part of it and so on; we mention ethics in the lead because we have sources supporting the fact that this is a major argument, just like we mention harassment in the lead (more prominently) because there are overwhelmingly more sources stating that Gamergate is about harassment. There are virtually no sources saying that Gamergate describes itself the way you feel it does, or that define Gamergate (and its 'membership', so to speak) the way you do. You are therefore demanding that we rewrite the article to give WP:UNDUE weight to this, based on your personal opinion that the tiny number of editorials that have mentioned it are correct and that the overwhelming number of sources stating otherwise are wrong. That is, in fact, a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL; our role in a dispute like this is to represent each view in accordance to its prominence, not to take the view that you, personally, feel is correct and give it equal validity and increased prominence based solely on your opinion that it reflects the article's subject more accurately. There is considerable disagreement, of course, about what Gamergate is, who is a part of it, what their goals are and so on; but there is overwhelming agreement among reliable sources as to the overarching outlines of the controversy, and they do not agree with what you're saying here (not even your characterization of what Gamergate "really believes", on which the sources show a lot of arguments, but general agreement that matches what our article now says.) If you object, that's fine, sometimes the sources are wrong... but WP:IMPARTIAL requires that we go with what they say regardless, not that we give equal weight to a viewpoint that, ultimately, is neither significant nor particularly well-sourced, simply because you assert (based on your personal understanding of what Gamergate is) that the few people advancing it speak for the "real" Gamergate. You have been hammering this argument about your opinions on "how Gamergate describes itself" for months now, and I think it's clear (at this point) that it will never get consensus; so I'd like to ask that you either drop it for good or, if you think it's absolutely essential, start an RFC on it so we can settle it once and for all. It's pointless for us to go in circles repeatedly discussing the exact same argument; I think it's unequivocal that your argument here violates WP:NPOV, WP:VALID, and WP:RS, among other policies, and that it's therefore long-past time you admit that it won't reach consensus and drop it. There's lots of other aspects of the article worth discussing and improving, but I think that on this particular matter it's well past the time where you should consider dropping the stick and walking away from the horse carcass. --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: "should be using the word movement as that is what they call themselves" who is this they? If you can't specify them topically, we can't possibly include anything about them. You have to narrow it down. Is "they" all gamers? Is "they" all misogynists? Is "they" all harassers? Is "they" all misogynistic gamers? Is "they" everyone that uses the hashtag? Who would you be talking about?

It is not judgmental to be clear about whom you are speaking when you are writing about them. Especially for this encyclopedia. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You're making a catch-22. Common sense and K.I.S.S. There's the GG Movement which we know is primarily those groups that are worried about ethics in video game journalism and other issues. No, we can't define their bounds, but there's no requirement to do so. We also know there are people engaged in long-term harassment. We don't know their relationship to the group outside of also using the #GG hashtag. It's the easiest describe and one that remains true to all sources (As well as what is there in reality) that doesn't attempt to define the group by unwarranted WP:LABELs thus keeping the coverage simple to understand and impartial. As soon as one tries to define a group by a label in WP's voice, that impartiality is lost. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Get your editors straight. I'm not talking about simplicity here. And a disorganized, co-opted, discredited group of harassers is not a movement. That's seems a pretty clear description supported by RS. 'Masem, You should be able to write a clear description of who you think you are talking about. And do use RS to support your description. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The press is clear - the group doing the harassing and the GG movement that want to talk ethics are two separate things. The bulk of the press use language to avoid equating the two (per the sources Rhoark has pulled out a while ago, incluiding the NY Times and the WA Post). They do speculate the likely overlap between the two, and strongly condemn the movement for basically enabling the harassers, but they have presented no evidence and do not attempt to say they are one and the same. That's how we should be writing it per WP:NPOV because any attempt to say that the movement are the harassers is a contentious statement and thus must be set as a claim per NPV. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The press is clear: "the GG movement that want to talk ethics" is largely discredited as conspiracy theorist who aren't really concerned with ethics. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As a label, and with no clear way to judge if the press is right or not, that remains a contentious statement to be reported as a claim of the press. We can't assume that as a fact. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem, you are now willfully ignoring that consensus about those sources was that there was no actual difference between the 'actually about ethics' group and the 'women existing hurts my feelings' group. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? That thread just petered out still under debate. I see no clear consensus there. And the issue is not the difference you describe, but the difference between the "ethics" side and those doing the harassment, which is made clear by the articles from that past discussion, at least to the point that not all being involved in the ethics side can be considered harassers. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A. B. Clump, girl reporter, has a hot lead: she can meet a typical Gamergate supporter by going down to Sam’s Bar at midnight. Let us imagine she meets a fellow who explains that Gamergate was really about ethics, and all the harassment came from Communist Agitators From Elsewhere. What’s more, Gamergate is really about electing Todd Cruz to the presidency and protecting people with autism-spectrum disorders from dangerous vaccines.

How is Ms. Clumo to know if this fellow is indeed a representative Gamergate "member"? After all, he might just be a random guy cadging drinks from the newspaper’s expense account. He might be making this up to embarrass The Gotham Globe. He might be a member of a dissident Gamergate faction. Who knows?

Ms. Clump can’t call Gamergate HQ and verify that her informant speaks for Gamergate: there is no HQ. Ms. Clump can’t ask the Gamergate Press Secretary whether this informant is correct; there is no press secretary. She can’t interview a random sample of Gamergaters: how would you find them? There is nothing Ms. Clump can do to confirm or refute this story, or any other.

As discussed at length in the archives, movements have members, they have policies and platforms, they have officials. Gamergate does not: Gamergate is not a movement. Associations have dues, qualifications, and membership rolls: Gamergate is not an association. We do have a term for amorphous, anonymous groups who undertake collaborative actions in secret because some of those actions are shameful or illegal. That term is “conspiracy.”

So, “conspiracy” is the right term, the term we’d use if we only cared about simplicity, clarity, and sense. But we also care about reaching consensus, and “conspiracy”, though accurate, is a bridge too far for some editors. “Movement” is misleading. The current compromise is “controversy” which, as I believe Sitush observed, is not entirely satisfactory because there really isn’t a controversy about Gamergate: pretty much everyone agrees that threatening to rape, maim, and murder people in the name of encouraging other people to modify the way they review games was very wrong. Yet those threats did change the world in their own small and mean way: we have a raft of news stories, fresh legislation, new anti-harassment policies, and a million words of talk at Wikipedia. Those threats are notable we can’t just delete the page.

These incoherencies are repeated over and over in this article. I agree: it's bad, but it is not -- for the most part -- a criminal deception. If you have a path to a solution, lots of us are eager to be shown the way.MarkBernstein (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To not call it a movement based on what you have said appears to be WP:OR. What about the RS cited by Masem, mainstream media outlets like Time and the Telegraph, which call it a movement? DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Simply speaking for myself, I am comfortable terming it a 'movement' because that term to me is fairly amorphous (much like gamergate!), and the sources use it, even if sometimes a bit cautiously. I do think we do the RSes a disservice if we don't qualify the usage somewhat -- with something like the Washington Post's language of " . . . if an ambiguous hashtag with no leaders and no articulated goals can be called a movement . . . ." Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my thinking on the subject. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely - if we do use the word movement, we also still need to include the RSes claims how a anonymous amorphous group could be called a movement. We as WP editors should not be trying to second guess claims a group has made about itself, and simply document to the best of our ability including the criticism that the group has received. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Here”s what the reliable sources actually say:

“Some sources call Gamergate a movement, some call it an anonymous and amorphous group or a hashtag, some call it a controversy, some term it a conspiracy, and others call it a criminal or terrorist organization.”

I believe this statement is true and accurately reflect the sources as well as the article. Certain editors would prefer to summarized all these terms as "movement," the seldom-used description that Gamergate apparently believes serves its PR program best. Others would prefer "conspiracy." Our current compromise is to call it a controversy, which is absurd but then, much of this page is absurd. Would you all prefer to use the entire range? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

We do use the term 'movement' in a few places (specifically, in contexts where the source refers to it that way.) The problem is that yes, the term covers more than one thing; it's been covered from many different angles. Forcing one descriptor on it would make a lot of coverage impossible to parse. --Aquillion (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I know nothing about Gamergate, I'm happy to say, other than being vaguely aware of the fuss at various drama boards etc. I read this article for the first time today. Apart from being very, very dull to read, it's also confusing and impenetrable. I don't suppose anything can be done about its dullness but the use of the word "Gamergate" is one of the things that makes this article most inaccessible to a general reader. I only got it (I think) after ploughing through the interminable verbiage three times. So I made this edit, which you reverted. Now, I couldn't care less whether it's described as a "movement", an "amorphous campaign", "those using the gamergate hashtag", "those opposing Quinn", "those siding with people using the gamergate hashtag" or whatever, but there has to be a sentence in the lead that explains to the readers (they're the ones we're supposed to be creating this stuff for) why on the one hand the article is called "G controversy" yet the article also says "G does X" and "supporters of G say Y". It's gibberish currently. So, why not, instead of just reverting, amend what I wrote to explain that as best you can? DeCausa (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Watch this. "Gamergate started as harassment campaign against Zoe Quinn, at the time this campaign organized around the term Quinnspiracy. Adam Baldwin later called this harassment campaign #GamerGate. The members of the harassment campaign tried to claim that the #GamerGate campaign was a movement about ethics in journalism. The claims that #GamerGate was abut ethics were thoroughly debunked." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: quoting MarkBernstein again from above: "A number of the passages you cite are old, old compromises where, after thousands of words of interminable discussion and countless proposals, bad language was accepted because it did not demonstrably [violate] BLP policy and still satisfied Gamergate's fans." You sound like you think we haven't tried to fix the thing you are complaining about. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct - if the quote you provided above is an example of trying to fix it. Less is more. The lead already asserts that there is a conflict and one side is an amorphous collection that advocates disparate points of view. No need to rehash that. All it needs is a short and bland additional sentence to say that side is referred to as "Gamergate" or "supporters of Gamergate". DeCausa (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Conflict? Sides? Don't see that in the lede. How's this for bland? "The harassment campaign is generally called GamerGate." (Keep watching.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I see it. If you (and others) can't then that may be the problem. And if you think that your quote is bland, then that may be the problem too. I'm fast coming to the conclusion that, in answer to your question, I don't think you've tried to fix it. DeCausa (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So tell me, what is the conflict? And what are the sides? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The core conflict is a number of gamers that are dissatisfied with what they believe to be ethical and journalistic problems with video game coverage that was instigated by the Gjoni post, with video game journalists insisting that they are in the right due to diversifying demographics. The entire situation has been compounded by a simultaneous highly visible, highly virolent, and long-ongoing harassment and threats towards a number of video game professionals (and in the case of Quinn and Sarkeesian, continuation of harassment they had recieved before) by users that may or may not be the same group as the gamers issuing complaints, also building off Gjoni's post; that made itself a second controversy set by mass media and others that the gamer group of the first conflict is either not taking sufficient steps to stop that harassment, are not making steps to distance themselves from that harassment, or may simply be using the ethics as a front to engage in harassment, while the gamer group insists they aren't doing the harassment and are trying to stop it, and that they prefer to keep their current, leaderless approach even if that has been tainted by the harassment situation. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not a conflict. That's a conspiracy/conspiracy theory. And I asked DeCausa for his thoughts. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it's a conflict. One side has opted to call it a conspiracy theory, but as a social aspect, we have no idea if this is true or not, outside of the original singular accusation that was debunked. It is not like, for example, a thing that can be proven with science and direct analysis ala the moon landing or Obama's citizenship ,which we can call the "conflict" as conspiracy theories due to the pile of evidence against them. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is your RS to support calling it a conflict? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Washington post for one, but its as a natural and neutral term to describe when two or more sides are at odds with each other. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That WAPO is dated - later information supersedes it. What are the various sides? Describe them clearly. You won't get to include the sides without telling people what the sides are. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, what? What new information has come out about the situation since GG , outside of continued analysis and ongoing harassment, since October? I've been scanning GNews and looking for the most recent "summary" article that describes it from a high level source and the most recent I can do it January [12] which actually describes both sides "From the very beginning there were two sides of GamerGate. On one side were indie game developers, media outlets, media critics, and industry people who could be interviewed and examined. On the other was a wall of anonymous puppet accounts created by 4channers that couldn't." (and realize that's just a partial quote, the author goes on to explain more on the second side) So that remains consistent with considering it a conflict. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky, I have no idea other than what's written in the article. As I've said before I know nothing about Gamergate other than what I read in the article. But pesumably you can read English as well as I can and every sentence of the lead describes one "side" except the first sentence in both of the the paragraphs. So what's your point? DeCausa (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well if you see it, describe the conflict and the sides. A conflict with only one side? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop playing games. I'm not going to cut and paste the lead here for you. No wonder this article's a mess. DeCausa (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is your RS to support calling it a conflict? The lede doesn't say conflict or side. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa Really, if it's so simply to see, then you should be able to suggest an edit, that is supported by RS, that says conflict and side easily. I don't see it.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to. Between edits by Brustopher and MarkBernstein it's been more or less sorted out. Maybe you should consider not editing here for a while as you seem unable to see what needs to be done. I see that of your 1000 edits, half are on this talk page. Maybe you should consider getting some broader experience and return here when you have it. DeCausa (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Anything else in the lede that needs fixing? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

500/30, this article, and beyond

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.

---

Moved to: Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta

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.

Potential source

I just came across this while searching through Google Scholar. I'm not familiar with the journal, and I don't have access to the papers contents, but maybe it's useful for other editors here.

• Evans, Sarah Beth; Janish, Elyse (2015). "#INeedDiverseGames: How the Queer Backlash to GamerGate Enables Nonbinary Coalition". QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking. 2 (2): 125–150. doi:10.14321/qed.2.2.0125. ISSN 2327-1574.

Strongjam (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No question that from the abstract alone that it should be used, just that I can't find the full article anywhere either. It looks like it will be good to document more on the industries' and other gamers' (those not within GG)'s reaction against GG . --MASEM (t) 17:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I imagine it would be best to classify those gamers who consider themselves supporters of the hashtag to be the outlier, rather than those who don't as the 'other'- see the strong non-gamer vanguard of GG re: Yiannopoulos, Sommers, Aurini, etc. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Do what? I don't understand this comment. I've got a copy of the article. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

All the "bad" GamerGate actors/supporters are anonymous (could be 1 or 1 million). The "good" GamerGate actors/supporters are the only ones that have been identified. By some math they are the "minority." To clarify, the "hate campaign" known as #GamerGate is anonymous yet there are supporters of #GamerGate that are not part of the hate campaign as they have names and IRL identities. This type cognitive dissonance is what makes the article difficult to read. In contrast, the victims of harassment are identifiable and there is no dispute/dissonance about the harassment or their victimization. --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually the opposite is going on here. RockyPeter's noting that many of the prominent named figures involved in Gamergate had no prior interest in video games, not that they are "good." Sitush: if you're referring to Rocky'sPeter's comment, the article only has one sentence covering this issue. Read from "Commentators such as Jon Stone, " in the Social and cultural implications section. Brustopher (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Now I am even more confused. For starter's, who is Rocky? I assume Stallone isn't writing papers on the GG mess. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

And the entire social and cultural implications section is gibberish. - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ForbiddenRockyPeterTheFourth, I was being lazy and didn't the full username. I was assuming your "Do what?" comment was in response to him. Apologies if I'm wrong Brustopher (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't even see a comment from them in this talk page section. I'm telling you, this article and talk page is screwed-up beyond belief. Everything is in code, and heavy on opinion/light on fact. - Sitush (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Brustopher might have meant to say "PeterTheFourth"? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

He's right. I think I should probably stop commenting here for tonight and get some sleep. I have no clue how I confused things so badly. Sorry.Brustopher (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I confuse them too. Get some sleep. --DHeyward (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec)To be clear, when I say "other gamers' (those not within GG)" are those that either don't give any opinion on GG or who have clearly stated themselves as "antiGG", in other words have zero involvement with the GG movement. The abstract talks about how some of those worked to promote supportive diversity twitter hashtags to contrast the GG situation, for example, which appears to be something that they studied in this paper to see how normally opposed groups came together to fight against the negativity of GG (which I would argue after I can review the article would be appropriate under the Industry Response). --MASEM (t) 22:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Read through it, I added the main point that this article was getting at - that they found that the anti-GG backlash was one that went beyond the binary nature of social categorization (gender, sexual preference, race, etc.) to show their support for Quinn, etc. in the wake of the harassment and the message that GG supporters were sending otherwise about ethics. Also led me to another RS from Salon that includes mention of other such hashtags. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I should add that much of the rest of the article is trying to expand the nature of this "binary" identification before it gets to the GG stuff proper. So at lot is beyond the scope of GG outside that. (They clearly note they fall into the anti-GG camp, in case there was any question). --MASEM (t) 02:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your help with my attempt to copy edit this would be appreciated

From the lede:

The term Gamergate has come to represent not only the controversy, but also the amorphous grouping represented by those using the Twitter hashtag.

I haven't read much about this controversy but I've never read anyone using "Gamergate" to refer to Gamergaters as a group. I'm just making sure the sentence is saying what you mean it to say. I'm reading through the article looking at clarity of expression, elegance of prose and coherence of narrative. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's how the word is often (but not always) used in the body of the article. If it's not true, then it needs to be cleared out of the main body article (and not just removed from the lead). DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah. OK. I see some use it to identify the movement. Fair enough. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving on. Regarding this:

In August 2014 Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, published the "Zoe Post", a 9,425 word blog post constructed out of personal chat logs, emails and text conversations detailing their relationship.

I haven't read the Zoe post and I don't want to have to. But the bold text is vague. Chat logs and emails are usually text conversations aren't they? What are the other types of text conversations being refered to here? SMS? Was it constructed only out of these quotes or did he add his own commentary too? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the 'text conversations' refers to those conducted by cellular phone; once upon a time, I would have been comfortable calling them 'SMS,' but the popularity of iMessage gives me pause now. Perhaps we could specify them as 'mobile phone text conversations?' It's still a bit imprecise, but I think the plain meaning is clear. Dumuzid (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Was the blog post constructed solely of these quotes, or did he also add commentary? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, it is an incredibly long blog entry that I read all of the way through. It's about what you would expect from any person whose lover had moved on. If I recall correctly, there are screen caps of personal communication, primarily Facebook chat and text messages, that is included in the last third of the post, to drive some of his points home. And the entire piece is one long commentary on an ex-girlfriend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the bold text

Some users of the term "gamergate" accused gaming journalists of an unethical conspiracy to suppress discussion of the corrupt behavior they incorrectly ascribed to Quinn and Grayson.[22] Such accusations were used by some as a cover or justification for harassment and attacks against Quinn.[20]

The accusations are accusations of a journalists' conspiracy to suppress discussion. The source for the second sentence does not say harrassers justify their behaviour by citing that journalists' conspiracy to suppress discussion. What is it you are trying to say here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There was certainly commentary as well as the aforementioned sources. I think I understand what the second sentence is trying to say; I'll see if I can find a better source to cite. Dumuzid (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

[13] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I definitely disagree with this change. The part you removed ("Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity.") is extremely well-sourced and extensively discussed in the article, while the discussion of whether it's a group or not strikes me as mostly irrelevant (it's not something many sources have focused on.) The word is sometimes used (and we use it in the article), but I don't agree that we have the sources to say that it's clearly the meaning of the term; while we have many, many sources going into depth on how it's a manifestation of a culture war and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Aquillion, I pulled that sentence because its prose is so poor as to render it useless to the reader and a barrier to further reading. I don't dispute its veracity. My edit summary said "Deleted second sentence of second paragraph because it is garbled and pretty meaningless for a reader new to this topic." You respond with a defense of its truth. Can we address the garbled expression? I think I understand what you mean by this sentence. May I suggest an alternative wording?

Also, I notice you reverted this edit, where I deleted

Such accusations were used by some as a cover or justification for harassment and attacks against Quinn.

I explained in my edit summary, "Source doesn't say that. User: Dumuzid is looking for a better form of words and a source that supports it." My main concern is with the poor expression, but it should be supported by a source, too. The Ars article we cite in support of this assertion does not support the assertion. Dumzid and I discussed it earlier in this thread. Do you have a source that supports the assertion?

To be very clear, we are presently asserting that a putative conspiracy among journalists to suppress discussion of Quinn's and Grayson's supposed corruption was used by some as a cover or justification for harassment and attacks against Quinn. This may well be true. I don't know. But you seem to think we are saying it was Quinn's and Grayson's supposed corruption that Gamergaters used to justify their attacks. That's not what we say. We say they used the press conspiracy to suppress discussion of Quinn to justify their attacks. Please read what we say carefully. Then read the source and tell me where it supports our assertion that Gamergaters used that putative wider press conspiracy to justify their attacks on Quinn. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that that sentence from the lead is pretty well-worded, given that it has to cover a fairly complicated topic. If you have a wording you believe is more clear, go ahead and propose it, but I don't see any problems with it as it is, and I do feel that every aspect of it is vital and must be in the lead in some form. As far as the other part you deleted goes, I think that "such allegations" clearly refers to the allegations against Quinn and Grayson, but it's easy to reword or move it to remove the ambiguity. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the last point: I misread, then. We mention Gamergaters accuse journalists of a conspiracy, and then in the next sentence say "such accusations..." so I took it to mean accusations about the conspiracy just mentioned. Do you mind if I try to make it a little less ambiguous? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I see you have moved and rephrased it. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

To my mind the best solution is to leave in the 'manifestation of a culture war' language and append some note about the 'group' usage. It's not exactly simplifying, but I think it's the least worst option available to us. Dumuzid (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hrm. Rereading the lead, I think it's already covers this. Within the first few sentences, it talks about "an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate". Is there anything confusing about that? --Aquillion (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Arguably the group adopted (eg willingly, not by others) the hashtag. "...that ultimately came to use the Twitter hashtag #gamergate". --MASEM (t) 03:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Aquillion, that sentence just about covers it, but I still feel as though we need to explicitly say somehow that "the group is sometimes referred to as gamergate," which, for me anyway, is a distinct concept from "represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate." Then again, it's entirely possible that I have thought about this far too much and have ceased making sense. Dumuzid (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Hepler: I think the Hepler inclusion was to show the pattern of harassment started before Gamergate was named such. Other sources: http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/why-gamergate-failed-a-look-back-at-2014s-most-ridiculous-movement-6385796 , http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-20141017 , http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/female-gamers-tell-their-stories-in-gtfo-which-tackles-sexism-in-gaming-industry/ . However, I'm not sure it should be included here so much as at Sexism in video gaming ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Shuffled Quotations

Just to expand on recent edit, I have attempted to group relevant quotations discussing the subject matter and section headings while trying to avoid synthesis. I don't believe I have made anything worse than it was - and I hope that some of the quotations now have a better context. What is obvious is there is an awful lot of editorialising, mixed with a considerable amount of passive voice. Some of this appears to be because of the piecemeal way each quotation was originally just added to a pre-existing paragraph. This needs to be reviewed and tidied up along with seeing if we can reduce down the wordiness of many opinions expressed. I know the habit is to quote where there is a quote, but where multiple quotes express the same thing we can summarise in wikipedias voice and use the most coherent example rather than quoting all three. Koncorde (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Koncorde: You did drop one bit Quinn told ''The New Yorker'' that she feels sympathy for her attackers because she believes their behaviour to be rooted in [[self-loathing]].<ref name="new yorker" />. I don't really care enough to put it back in though. — Strongjam (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I saw I'd knocked of 180 characters. It's a bit of opinion from Quinn. I remember trying to find a place for it, thought I had pasted it back in. Koncorde (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Heads up for upcoming article from Singal / Boston Globe

I see from Reddit that Jesse Singal is preparing another GG-related article for the Boston Globe to be published Sunday. He does appear to be asking KIA for input as he did before, so we'll see what happens. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Dot kills comments section

I recall there being a thread about how The Verge closed their comments section and cited GamerGate as a reason. Now it seems that The Daily Dot is doing so indefinitely, mentioning GamerGate as well. Why we're killing our comments section GamerPro64 02:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Verge (and its related sites) did close down comments for the summer but I don't recall them mentioning GG (though it was certainly implied that this was part of the reason). Also note that DD includes GG among other -gates as reason to close down, so that might be a better aspect for a larger article on this culture war. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem, just in the interest of accuracy, the Verge article said "What we've found lately is that the tone of our comments (and some of our commenters) is getting a little too aggressive and negative — a change that feels like it started with GamerGate and has steadily gotten worse ever since." [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies for neglecting my signature! Dumuzid (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I was going off memory, so clearly they did. But reading that, I still feel it has the same take as DD's comment, that it's not just GG but the whole attitude these events have at these comment sections. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary needed for List of scandals with "-gate" suffix

You may be interested in the ongoing discussion of this article's summary on List of scandals with "-gate" suffix at Talk:List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The text there currently mentions "reactions against social criticism of video games", which may be more to the point than the current first sentence of Gamergate controversy, which just says "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns sexism in video game culture." Yaris678 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat my concern here: 'social' criticism is an imprecise use of language. "Social" in this context is from an argot with which a reader may or may not be familiar. Whether or not this is an appropriate summation, I think this terminology needs to be improved. Dumuzid (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the term is problematic, for the reasons you give, but we could always... you know... link to the article that defines the term. Yaris678 (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As per Yaris, link to the term. Also language not an issue. We have to assume people can look up a term if they need to. Koncorde (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, mea culpa! I was familiar with the term, but it apparently has far more currency than I had assumed. Consider this complaint imprudently offered, and consequently withdrawn! Dumuzid (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dumuzid. I have made a change to the first sentence but I am happy to discuss it further if people want to. Yaris678 (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Yaris678: we're getting far afield from the sources now. While there's a "reaction to social criticism" element, it is pretty much universally agreed that the so-called 'Zoepost' was the inception of things, which really had nothing whatsoever to do with social criticism. Your change implies otherwise to me. Dumuzid (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It is always hard to pick a first sentence and I'm not going to pretend that one is perfect. Various sources have written about why some people reacted so strongly to the 'Zoepost'. As our own lead says, half-way through the second paragraph "Some of the people using the gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics." Yaris678 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That is indeed what some people say, but you have chosen to privilege the view of those people over other people, and, I would argue, the reliable sources. Again, the zoepost and 'Quinnspiracy memes' had nothing whatsoever to do with social criticism, and when ethics were brought up, they were about quid-pro-quo trades between game journalists and developers, not social criticism--though I admit an element of this came to be attached to the 'controversy.' Given all this, I think your sentence as written is misleading in that it implies the social criticism element was there from the start, which it was not. Dumuzid (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Can you suggest a first sentence that would fix this problem? Yaris678 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd ask that! I've tried, but the results are always unwieldy. I don't see a way to have a reasonable topic sentence without a brief recap of things. Thus, I'd be in favor of something like "The Gamergate controversy, concerning sexism in video game culture, began in August of 2014 with a harassment campaign aimed at a female developer, but quickly grew to include allegations of ethical impropriety and complaints about academic critiques of video games, as well as the harassment of other notable figures." Just a thought--and feel free to reject it. Dumuzid (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment The existing discussion is occurring at Talk:List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, not here. Suggest you join THAT discussion, rather than fork HERE. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: the discussion regarding the first sentence of this article, you mean? We definitely drifted from the "...gate" discussion. Dumuzid (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No. This article List of scandals with "-gate" suffix has a reference to Gamergate controversy. The summary appearing on List of scandals with "-gate" suffix is being debated at Talk:List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. Interested editors should go there to collaborate, and not reply to this FYI section which I posted. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to the lede

Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity.

To

Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over social criticism of video games, the gamer social identity, diversity in gaming culture and recognition of video games as an art form.

When, new to this topic, I read the existing text, I found it a bit impenetrable. I think my proposed wording would be clearer to someone not already familiar with the topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. The ordering seems to fit the relative importance of the different issues. I also like the fact that you changed the confusing pipe of "artistic recognition" to "recognition of video games as an art form". Yaris678 (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the "video games as art"; that video games are protected free speech like other forms of art, that concept itself is not something that is of an issue to GG from what we know; it is the idea that games, as artistic expression, are being used to push social messages (eg LGBT themes in Gone Home). (Yes, I'm aware of the paradoxical nature of that statement, I'm just stating what we know they've said from RSes.) --MASEM (t) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We need to do something with Yaris678's revision to the first sentence. I have no doubt it was done in good faith, but I fear that as it stands it is misleading as to the origin of the controversy. I suggested an (admittedly not very good) replacement above, but really think something should be done. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I believe it was just reverted back to the last stable version, so no hurry--but I still think it's worth thinking about a better opening. Dumuzid (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. It is, I think, clear that the abovequoted sentence is unclear and open to misinterpretation. I'll leave it up to those who know what it's supposed to be saying to make it say that in words others can understand. I'll just point out that having a sentence like that in the lede of an article is a serious problem. Best of luck with your endeavours! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Would you be happy with the revised sentence if we just dropped the reference to "video games as an art form"? i.e. How do you feel about it saying the following?

Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over social criticism of video games, the gamer social identity and diversity in gaming culture.

I know this doesn't address the "using games to push messages" issue... but neither does the sentence we are seeking to replace. At least this new sentence is clearer.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly object to this as the first sentence unless at least some mention is made of the many sources who see this as either a nominal issue or a fig leaf over other concerns. Dumuzid (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How about including "a culture ware over social commentary and social criticism within video games, ..." (the former capturing the essence of what I was saying). (And to Dumuzid, I think this is the first sentence of the second paragraph, not the first lede sentence). --MASEM (t) 17:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem, yes, yet another mea culpa from me. I read too fast. Disregard the previous! I'll try to not join in the fray amongst other activities. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem, that is a great point, which I hadn't thought of - it is not just "social criticism of video games" is also "social criticism in video games" or at least "video games inspired by social criticism". Yaris678 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gamergate controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sitush (talk · contribs) 12:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick fail: article is subject to numerous disputes. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

NB: above was meant as a comment. I am probably too involved to review. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Do these disputes actually affect article stability? I nominated this article because I feel that it meets the GA criteria. I have never edited the article. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you are an involved editor, you should not have reviewed this. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was not intending to review it, as I said above. And if you cannot see that the article is unstable then you really need ot back off nominating things in this way. It almost seems point-y. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm involved, but I've also reviewed a lot of GAs and I would also recommend quick failing this. The barrier to GA should be plainly obvious. Look at most GANs which need a little work to reach the status--the reviewer and nominator need to be able to hash out updates to the article and know they'll stick. With articles that are constantly in dispute, this is impossible. Just imagine proposing a few dozen changes to the GG article tomorrow. How many would be implemented? How long would it take? It's not feasible to review this article. Protonk (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and I am responding to the request at WT:GAN to reverse the actions of the reviewer, who indicates their role to review is unintentional. Rather than reverse the reviewer's actions, I am quick-failing this GA as I see that the article is far from stable: more than a dozen editors have made contributions in the last 24 hours alone. I also don't appreciate "drive-by" GA nominations; the nominator admits making no prior improvements to the article and may not even be committing to participate in the GA review. Finally, I respect the opinion of those above who are contributors and who recommend this quick-fail. I'm confident the editors who are dedicated to the improvement of this worthy article will continue to work to prepare it for it's GA nomination and will make that nomination when they are ready. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a bad faith nomination, seeking opinions that the article is not GA in order to prevail in a content dispute that seeks to exploit Wikipedia for the purpose of harassing some women who are targets of a faction. 01:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with nomination if the point is to get uninvolved editors involved to clean it up. It's clearly not a GA level article. Editors that are expecting to "review" this article will be sadly disappointed. Editors that become motivated to contribute, however, are welcome. They should have no illusion that this article is "Good" in any sense of the word and should move on if reviewing is their major focus. --DHeyward (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's no good expecting an article to pass Good Article criteria when we have to restrict who is allowed to edit the discussion page. The best we can ask is that the state of the article has remained fairly stable for months and gives a reasonably clear idea of what "Gamergate" is about. It does that pretty well, given the circumstances. In many ways it reminds me of the article about the CRU email theft (which thankfully didn't get to the point of being called by the misleading name "Climategate". --TS 23:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Climategate and List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Journalism and academics--DHeyward (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert by PtF for OR

This edit is accurate and sourced in multiple places.[15]. It's even supported by the first sentence which says it was the second threat that mentioned gamergate. The following source includes the entire email threat of the shooting as well as this: Though the email (mass shooting) threat to Utah State did not mention #GamerGate, it fits a sad trend in increased intimidation toward its critics.: [16] Other sources (in addition to the one in the article) clearly mention the first threat mentioned shooting and the second threat mentioned gamergate After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school late Monday, a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate.[17] the threats certainly belong in the article as they coalesced around gamergate but we should not misrepresent them as there were both anti-feminism and gamergate interests merging into a single entity. Even Sarkeesians tweet said one threat (that we know was the second of three) was gamergate @FemFreq: Multiple specific threats made stating intent to kill me & feminists at USU. For the record one threat did claim affiliation with #gamergate. Please explain how the edit was "Original Research" as mentioned in the summary [18] when there are multiple sources confirming which threat was a shooting threat, a source that includes the entire threat and definitive timeline sources about which one of three threats mentioned gamergate? I believe the only prior discussion was about the lead which I did not edit, not the body which has always said the second threat, not the first shooting threat, is the one mentioning gamergate. --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's the email --DHeyward (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Sark threat.jpg

Mass shooting threat to USU

Yep, it's been discussed before- I was referring to the discussion about the lede's summary of the body. I didn't see it in the sources we were citing for it, so it seemed like original research (or at the least WP:SYNTH.) You will note, however, that the sentence before it establishes the second threat as the one claiming affiliation with gamergate. Why do you believe we should mention that twice? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I only mentioned that the mass shooting threat did not mention gamergate. That was not clear. The text of the threat is definitely anti-feminist. Not a mention of games, gamergate or anything related to that, though. As the FBI noted, it was very similar to the threats she received prior to gamergate. --DHeyward (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: The current sources inline don't seem to mention the fact that it did not reference Gamergate. I recall you had a source that did mention that (a Utah paper I think?), Oh I see it now, The Salt Lake Tribune article. Maybe add that source inline there and then add that bit? — Strongjam (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want a revert war. I think it's a supported edit and can add the inline source. Do others also support that? --DHeyward (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you believe we should mention that only the second threat explicitly mentioned gamergate twice? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, that is not my edit. My edit is only to say the mass murder school shooting threat did not mention gamergate. It is currently not clear. It's very clear in the sources though. It's rather obvious that it's not clear if you originally said it was OR and SYNTH to say such a thing and now say that it is repeating information. It can't be both. This is my edit[19] and it doesn't mention the second threat at all and I will add Strongjam's inline citation. You can read the entire threat File:Sark_threat.jpg as well as the sources I provided above. --DHeyward (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop talking around the issue. I'm not debating which threats did or did not explicitly mention gamergate- I'm asking why you believe it's necessary to include this information twice. When we say "the school received three anonymous threats, the second of which claimed affiliation with Gamergate.", we are also clearly saying that the other two did not. It's unnecessary to state, in the article about the sky, that the sky is not red if we have already described it as blue. Reiterating this information seems unnecessary, and I'm concerned that its inclusion seems to be a WP:SYNTH attempt to say that the mass shooting is not relevant to the article because it does not explicitly mention gamergate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems abundantly clear that threat 1 and 3 did not mention Gamergate. If that's not the correct interpretation of the sentence Peter has presented then there's an issue, otherwise not sure what the argument is about. Koncorde (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It didn't seem abundantly clear that the mass shooting threat wasn't gamergate when PtF reverted that simple edit based on OR and SYNTH. Was the mass shooting threat gamergate or not? Sources say not. Lead says yes, body is vague. I proposed clearing up the body by explicitly stating it. Any objection since it's so clear?. --DHeyward (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I object to needlessly repeating it if we've already got it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So you're okay with saying the shooting threat wasn't gamergate since we don't have that and it seemed to confuse you when it was stated (you called it SYNTH and OR). We can take out the mention of the second threat if you only want the single "the shooting threat didn't mention "gamergate, games or tropes". --DHeyward (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I object to the edit you made which I reverted, initially because it wasn't in the sources cited for it (aka WP:OR) and now because we're already mentioning it in the article and the only seeming effect of including it a second time (in the sentence directly after it?) is to contrast it with the sentence it's included in (aka WP:SYNTH). I can't make it any more simple for you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi PeterTheFourth, I think you raise an important question here. The current text is Sarkeesian canceled an October 2014 speaking appearance at Utah State University (USU) after the school received three anonymous threats, the second of which claimed affiliation with Gamergate.[37] The initial threat alluded to the École Polytechnique massacre, a 1989 mass shooting motivated by antifeminism. I think you are quite correct to call out WP:SYNTH here. What is the purpose of the second sentence? How does it enhance a reader's understanding of the Gamergate controversy? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about WP:SYNTH in the edit made by DHeyward. You're welcome to make edits to the article if you believe there is other improper synthesis present, however. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no SYNTH in my edit as they are independent statements. The first threat that mentioned a mass shooting was unrelated to gamers, gamergate or the gamergate controversy. I have no preference to how that is stated and/or removed. It's certainly not clearly stated in the article and its presence both in the body and the lead is misleading. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, death threats and the threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event. SYNTHS harassment attributed to gamergate with the shooting threat that doesn't have anything to do with gamergate or sexism in video game culture. Read the sources, read the threat. They intersected over one speech but no support for being related. --02:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fast Company: The threats are the latest in an ugly line of attacks on women who critique the gaming industry, as part of a general backlash organizing under the hashtag #GamerGate.... Though the email threat to Utah State did not mention #GamerGate, it fits a sad trend in increased intimidation toward its critics. New York Times: The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate.... It's clear that reliable sources consider the threats—as in plural—to be related. Woodroar (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

And that's it - the sources consider the threats related (and my gut feeling agrees with this) but if there is zero mention of GG in the actual shooting threat as reported by all RSes reiterating the threat's text from authorities (and with the clear distinguishing aspects that the second threat was specifically GG related), it is factually wrong to make the statement that GG's harassment included a shooting threat. We can say that sources think the shooting threat is related, but that's as far as we can state that. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course they are related and I agree with Masem. The nexus is Sarkeesian, though, not Gamergate for the shooting threat. More specifically, Sarkeesian is a feminist cultural critic and a gaming industry critic. They are coincident, not causal and threats may have targeted either or both. The shooting threat was very specifically targeting feminism and had more than one target. Many feminists were threatened in the shooting email and they were completely unrelated to gaming. Only Sarkeesian had a link to gaming and feminism but she wasn't the only one threatened and the threat didn't mention games, gamergate or viseo games at all. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

To amend, I meant "the sources consider the threats both related to gamergate... --MASEM (t) 04:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Boston Globe, Salon

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2015/08/01/gamergate-lives-but-attention-fades/xIHcjRrxP5WGcoEjTabAkM/story.html

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/30/angry_entitled_men_partner/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Singal, Boston Globe piece can be used to point out that while GG continues a year out, the mainstream do no consider it as significant as, in taken the side about ethics and ignoring the harassment, they haven't made any "big" plays that other notable anonymous movements have done. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

the Globe, incidentally, explicitly concludes that Gamergate is not a "movement", a contention we've discussed here a few times.MarkBernstein (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's clear it is a movement, in GG's own stance, but very much begs the question in a opinionated take that GG has none of the attributes that any even-slightly successful movements of the past have had, thus if it is even a relevant group or an effective movement. But Singal still calls it a movement several times. --MASEM (t) 12:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How would you, or anyone, know what is or is not "GG's own stance?" singal explains why it is a "movemen"t that is not a movement. That should settle the matter we were discussing.MarkBernstein (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading statements without taking judgement, it is clear even in Singal's language that it is the GG supporters that call themselves a movement; the media recognizes this self-ascribed claim. They obviously say "if you're a movement, you're nothing likely any even remotely successful movement in the past" as criticism, but they still recognize that GG calls itself that. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"It’s hard for a movement to call itself a movement when it ignores most of the rules movements tend to follow — having clear platforms, representatives, and so on. Anyone can use the #GamerGate hashtag, and anyone can claim a given use of that hashtag doesn’t represent “real” GamerGate." This so-called movement lacks any of the defining characteristics of a movement. Some people claiming to be part of the so-called movement say they call themselves a movement, but we can't know if they're representative or not. The controversy over calling this controversial conspiracy a "movement" is over. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that's Singal's commentary. The fact remains, as citeable to many sources "The GG supporters claim they are a movement." That doesn't mean it is a movement, nor does is mean it isn't a movement, since there's no hard definition or objective measure of what a movement is. Singal, like many other of his contemporaries, raise very valid questions that how this could be a movement due to its lack of leadership, anonymous membership, etc., and that is a predominant opinion that we must obviously include. But they do separate fact - that GG claims it is a movement - from their take on it. Since there's no authority for determining who is or isn't a movement, their take remains opinions and claims. Note that that means when we do speak to GG as a movement, we absolutely sure it is a self-identified claim. Neither statement "GG is a movement" or "GG is not a movement" has any backing sources to support either as fact. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Besides argument on this talk page, I don't see any argument about whether or not Gamergate is a movement. If it is, the record shows what a very low bar you need to be called a movement. This article is quite correctly about both the harm done in the name of Gamergate, and the justifications and excuses made to defend that harm. But mostly about the former, because the latter always lacked seriousness and credibility in the eyes of the available reliable sources. --TS 18:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein, while I am fine with the generic replacement of "Gamergate movement" with "Gamergate," in certain instances where it is explicitly called such in the source it seems wrong to change the wording. The Berkman Center quote, for instance, reads in context: "The post provokes a vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morphs into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism. The movement, labeled #GamerGate, involves considerable abuse and harassment—including rape and death threats—of female developers and game critics." Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not fine when the summarised sentence is referring to a source that refers to Gamergate as a movement. The justification to remove is then based upon our own definition of the word - not the one used by the reliable sources. I have reverted because if Social movement cannot define it then we certainly shouldn't be trying to establish a definitive answer in the face of the reliable sources saying otherwise:

"There is no single consensus definition of a social movement.[5] Mario Diani argues that nearly all definitions share three criteria: "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity" [6] Koncorde (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[20] is now a failure of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. We do not judge that they call themselves a movement, a term used by numerous sources to describe the situation. Removing the term altogether per the logic above is a judgemental approach that we on WP cannot be doing at all. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits are all about cohesiveness and consistency. We shouldn't be constantly changing how we refer to them just because they themselves try to change how they're framed. We rely on the general view taken by reliable sources, which generally speaking do not describe it as a 'movement' in the formal sense of the word (leadership, goals, organisation etc.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources say they are a self-described movement, this is a fact across at least 300 news articles, and that is the where we have to accept it. Period. To try to say that GG has claimed to be anything else (outside of a consumer revolt) is passing judgement as WP editors, which we cannot do if we are staying neutral and objective. We still will include every bit of the press's claims that if they are a movement, they are unlike any movement before, or that the movement is a cover for more malicious action, but in terms of staying neutral and making the article easy for the reader to understand, we need to stick with the most clear term common in the RSes, even if editors personally don't like it. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you have 'at least 300 news articles' from reliable sources which say they are a self-described movement. Sorry, Masem. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

307 hits for "Gamergate movement" [21] and over 2000 for "Gamergate" + "movement" [22]. Yes, some of these are Brietbart, etc. and not necessarily all reliable sources (but they are news articles as I said) but that still reflects the state of the sources, including the highest reliable ones. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that google hits define how we should cover something. You really shouldn't either. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair evaluation of how many articles exists that met certain search criteria, and used throughout the rest of WP (for example , in article naming discussions) . The only place where it can't be used is for deletion discussions. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Koncorde, The Social movement article, and the definitions therein are, I believe, instructive on this point; and I thank you for having drawn the attention of editors to them. The concerns raised around describing Gamergate as a movement are highlighted in that article as being common to social movements. Social movements are a type of group action. They are large, sometimes informal, groupings of individuals or organizations which focus on specific political or social issues. In other words, they carry out, resist or undo a social change does seem to fit. The Definitions & Identification of supporters sections (including the piece you have quoted) also address the concerns around leaders, membership, etc. FWIW, IMHO, if movements were to require official memberships then they would be political parties.
Given the use of the descriptor in sources, could editors opposed to its use here provide reasoning as to why? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The American labor movement was certainly a movement, and was not a political party. The British Chartists were a movement but not a party, and the movement for Parliamentary Reform crossed parties. The American Civil Rights movement was not a party. Yet all of these have the accoutrements mentioned above which Gamergate lacks: leadership, spokespersons, platforms, and membership. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that a social movement does not require (but can have) leadership, membership , or any organization; it is repeatedly defined in other sources as simply being a collective action by a number of like-minded individuals generally against a social norm. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is truly an absurd discussion. Gamergate is called a "movement" without qualification in numerous sources, so this is not an issue with WP:RS. The sources tend to agree that it is an not a particularly effective movement, but that it can reasonably be called a "movement" is almost indisputable. I can provide diffs, but it's the same year-old articles that we've been posting on this page since the article was created, so I won't bother. As Ryk72 pointed out, the social movement article has a section on definitions. If we're going to ignore reliable sources, then we should use the definitions provided by sociology experts. Clear platforms, representatives, and a lack on anonymity are not part of the defining characteristics. So if we're ignoring reliable sources, and ignoring the agreed-upon definition of social movement, what is the actual justification for this change? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's actually interesting that, spurred on by the fact that the social movement article is not in great Wikipedia quality shape, that looking to sources on social movements (Google scholar and books), that 1) this is a major field of study in the social sciences since at least the 70s (if not earlier), 2) all sources I've scanned agree with the WP statement which is repeated above and meets the definition of whats happening with GG and 3) that because movements (successful or failed ones) are generally going against the social norm that researchers in the area are cautioned from introducing bias towards the norm when researching on a social movement. Yes, it would have been original research to call GG a movement without any sources calling it that, but as it is clearly identified as one, we should be handling our coverage in a manner that follows from established academia processes. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein, please stop forcing me to agree with Masem (no offense Masem). Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

None taken --MASEM (t) 20:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Let's assume "a social movement is [...] a collective action by a group of likeminded people generally against a social norm". Masem, what social norm are they against- critically reflecting on entertainment? Is the collective action harassment? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The social norm would be (drastically simplified) "there are no ethical issues in video game journalism", which is what they are fighting against. And the collective action certainly is strong use of social media and letter writing campaigns, and probably even the harassment - reading the books and journals on social movements, not all the collective actions need to be legal/morally correct, and that social movements can engage in violent or similarly destructive actions. That's where some movements succeed and where some fail. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

How does threatening to shoot Anita Sarkeesian address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does conspiring to prevent Zoe Quinn from attending a professional conference by giving her a beating resulting in knee damage or brain injury address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does popularizing cartoons that allude to rape injury, regardless of whether or not a static image can readily allude to rape, address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does a campaign of recruiting zombie accounts to lobby for more Wikipedia discussion of the sex lives of various developers address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does using Wikipedia to announce that a software developer's date of death is "soon" address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does repeatedly attempting to use Wikipedia to defame women in the software industry address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does the bitter and hard-fought campaign to topic-ban the Five Horsemen of WikiBias address an ethical issue in video game journalism? It's not a question of failure: none of the notable actions of Gamergate have any connection to video game journalism, nor could any reasonable person expect them to effect a change in ethical issues in video game journalism. If Gamergate were a movement that concerned ethics in video game journalism, we would reasonably anticipate that it would chiefly address video game journalism and its practices. Instead, it is chiefly known for addressing people who have no connection at all with video game journalism, except that journalists sometimes write about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs)

This just strikes me as such a low bar that I don't get the outrage. It's value neutral to me. Gamergate might be an incoherent, feckless movement, but calling it a movement would still be okay, by my lights. If we can refer to the Translation Movement, the Anti-Masonic Movement and the Eugenics movement, I see no reason why we can't call gamergate a 'movement,' as several of the sources do. Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a clear point from the social movement researchers - movements can be failures, they can engage in despicable practices, they can be irrational. But they still are movements. (And it is a fair question where the line is drawn between movements, terrorism, and revolution, that seems to be a classic question that continues to be subject for discussion in social movement research). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

New articles from Vox & Wired

Pieces from both Vox and Wired about mob justice and comparing the Cecil the lion mob to Gamergate:

• Fisher, Max (July 30, 2015). "From Gamergate to Cecil the lion: internet mob justice is out of control". Vox.
• Finley, Klint (July 28, 2015). "Internet Attacks Lion Killer With Poisoned Yelp Reviews". Wired.

Not sure if usable, or if maybe we should wait to see if more sources take similar angles. — Strongjam (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling GG out as an example of "internet mob justice" seems to be a reasonable opinion in or around the culture war aspects. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I did add these in (one sentence to establish it as an example), but I'm surprised in that we don't have much (or that I'm just not seeing it) describing the general aspect of mob tactics (claimed or factual or otherwise) that I'm sure have been discussed in sources. We have a quote from Quinn on this, but nowhere else. Just a thought... --MASEM (t) 14:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I note that JzG has reverted Masem's addition, with the edit summary "Not persuaded these are comparable; looks like a WP:CROWBAR." Perhaps JzG would like to expand on the explanation. To me this looks like a good point, well sourced. Arguably, mentioning Cecil is an example of recentism... but if we accept that argument we can cut that bit out and still say "Gamergate has been identified as an example of the increasing appearance of Internet mob justice." Yaris678 (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I find the summary that GG is (an example of) mob justice not warranted by the RS, but perhaps mob action - despite the title of the Vox article (ie. This should look familiar: It is the same set of tactics that has been used in online harassment campaigns such as the "Gamergate" movement). As Masem knows, I noted that GG has been used as an example of the many of the worst things in the internet many times these last few months. While I do think this general thrust is correct, I think that at this time using just these two things may be UNDUE.

SHORTER: 1) would like to include, but 2) poor summary of RS, 3) too recent, 4) maybe undue. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing I noticed (mentioned above) when I looked for where to add this is that it is hard to disagree that there's a mob mentality aspect to GG (for better or worse), I'm not seeing a lot of discussion of that in the article, even though my recollection of the sources suggests we should be able to write about this nature (even if one just focuses on the criticism about ethics and the attempts to sway adverts). Hence why these would be better if we built that up atop that aspect. We may have to use the claims related to the origins of GG being engineered to get a large # of people involved. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a useful characterisation. Yes, the GamerGate activists had elements of a vigilante hate mob, but unlike Cecil the lion, the "revenge" was against a largely imagined offence. It's not really comparable. If anything the article needs to get shorter, not be bloated out with even more passing references in discussion of other things. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trying to make that distinction ourselves (though I do agree that there is a significant difference between the cases); if there's been a connection pointed out in secondary sources, we should be considering that. As the Vox article points out, this type of mob behavior is not limited to these two examples and is getting more common and considered a disturbing trend. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a Slate article comparing another example of internet mob behaviour to gamergate.[23] Perhaps there could be a sentence or two noting the increasing comparison of things to gamergate in the press? Brustopher (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If there's any reference to mob behaviour then all that needs to be said is "Gamergate behaviour has been criticised as mob justice" or words thereof. No need for quotes or extensive waxing lyrical. Too much of that exists in the article as it is. Koncorde (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The key in both articles is not just that it is mob justice, but part of a trend of mob justice. I see the reason not necessarily to include the Cecil thing, but the point both authors put forth is that this seems to be becoming the norm. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Both the dentist and gamergate victims have been driven from their homes due to death threats. We really can't make the case that their different without value judgements. I would simply argue they are all victims of mob justice and part of the fear is shear enormity of anger directed at them combined with threats. This is where mob justice is intersecting these two stories. The nuances of whether it's "justice" vs. "action" is POV. "Vigilantism" vs. "mob" is also POV. Characterizing one in friendlier terms than the other fails to understand that none of the parties deserves death threats or to be driven from their homes. But Cecil isn't gamergate so I don't think any of it belongs here. --DHeyward (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, we have an article called Internet vigilantism, which is obviously related to "Internet mob justice"... but I wouldn't link to that article in its current form because it doesn't seem to (currently) cover the case where the internet is used to coordinate and deliver threats to do harm offline. Yaris678 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd not call that vigilantism (where Internet users are helping to bring illegal activity to a halt), because in all cases the articles state, they are talking about the Internet users percieving that the people on the receiving end have done something wrong though there's no legal basis for that, going off their own sense of justice. We do have mob justice for that purpose. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"Vigilante justice" and "mob justice" are both done according to the flawed judgment of the people meeting out the punishment. If there is a distinction between the two, it is just that "mob" implies a large group of people, sufficient to overwhelm any opposition, whereas a vigilante can act individually or in small groups. Yaris678 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, checking off-site sources that talk both. Probably means our own articles probably need reworking. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

My new made up word for all of the TwitterFacebookReddit wars is agendaneering. I have dibs and want credit :). --DHeyward (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick note on the vanity fair (The Witness) bit

just to be clear from Peter's change [24] I was not trying to write the implication that the coverage itself was to blame, just that with the mainstream coverage resulted in people coming to see negative aspects of the industry. Not disputing the change, just trying to be clear on my original intent. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No harm, no foul, right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)