Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:52, 9 January 2015

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Draft Article

While this article is fully protected until editing disputes are resolved, there is a draft article which can be used to develop the content at Draft:Gamergate controversy. This talk page can be used to make suggestions to the draft article. Please note that the draft article falls within the scope of general sanctions and that edits made to the draft article are subject to sanctions. Please see {{Gamergate sanctions}} for more info.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Video games B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Cobra (game engine) (5 participants)
Dink (software company) (1 participant)
Jeffrey Johnson (actor) (2 participants; relisted)
Endor AG (3 participants; relisted)
Planet Half-Life (4 participants; relisted)
Flash Element TD (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

From Doxxing to Swatting

I've just added the below to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting. The escalation from doxxing to swatting is definitely noteworthy:

On January 3, 2015, twenty Portland, Oregon police officers were sent to the former home of transwoman and former GamerGater Grace Lynn following four months of on-line harassment. ^[1] Her tweets deescalated the situation, inasmuch as she proactively checks for on-line harassment daily. ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kencf0618 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying this isn't something serious, but there's no evidence in the sources of this being tied to Gamergate. One of the sources cites an anonymous 8chan /baphomet/ (?) sub board post which appears to be about satanic goat worshippers who like to raid people. I know quite a lot of people were upset with this person when she didn't deliver on a kickstarter project. [1] [2] No qualms with its inclusion on the swatting article, though I think the language could use some clean-up. Concerns about how this would be included in this article as it would seem circumstantial. Weedwacker (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The oregonlive ref connects it directly to GamerGate; since they're a reliable source, that's sufficient to include it here. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this month, she began proactively searching for her name. On Friday, she found an 8chan thread showing that users were planning to send a police SWAT team to her house. They said they weren't members of Gamergate, but Lynn said they are supporters of the movement. [3] The source is reporting on her opinions, so if it's included it should be stated as that. Weedwacker (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and given that the source took those opinions seriously enough to include them, and to headline the article "Gamergate," we can similarly report that Lynn stated her belief that the attackers were linked to Gamergate. Also, please don't insert unreliably-sourced claims into the encyclopedia. TechRaptor and Wikipedia are obviously not reliable sources, and I'm not sure there's any consensus about CrowdfundInsider — at any rate, the fact that it cites RooshV's "Reaxxion" brings the article into serious question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to a direct citation of the kickstarter stating it failed, and me merely mentioning that? That seems to be good enough for Wikipedia's article on it. I agree techraptor is not a reliable source, there's no consensus on crowdfundinsider but it has been used on other articles here. Weedwacker (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stating here that the Kickstarter failed is fine, but relating it to the swatting issue anywhere in articlespace would be original research unless there's a reliable source which has done so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated it as such, and since original research does not apply to talk pages, I am not arguing for the mention of such in articlespace just stating it here. Weedwacker (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A single local news source about something concerning someone from the area hardly warrants inclusion on this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. It's published in The Oregonian, the largest newspaper in the state of Oregon. That's hardly a minor source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. This story is just "something happened here possibly connected to something else that has gotten national media attention!" A very weak connection made by an "in our area" story just does not cut it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made the NY Daily News as well.^[3] — Strongjam (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also now in The Verge: 'About 20' police officers sent to Gamergate critic's former home after fake hostage threat and KOIN: Portland Police respond to ‘swatting’ incident. The reliable sources reporting on this are multiplying. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Verge states "It's obviously not hard to lie on the internet, but there's every reason to believe that this is an unaffiliated troll lashing out." While the Daily News garbles it a bit, they basically say this is Lynn's claim that it has anything to do with GamerGate. It should be understood that 8chan had posters well before GamerGate and people have recently flocked to 8chan for reasons only loosely connected with GamerGate such as the recent /pol/ shenanigans. Lynn, while being against GamerGate had also been campaigning against 8chan in general that had some success with removal of the site from Patreon. Another thing to keep in mind is that the old GamerGate board on 8chan is under the control of a GNAA troll who openly admits to inciting threats against prominent opponents of GamerGate to make GamerGate look bad. If we use two reports in non-local news as a basis for including this then it should be in the context of sources strongly pointing to it being unrelated trolls.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the actual swatting took place on a separate board for general anti-social mayhem, and users joked about Gamergate supporters "taking the fall" for the attack. It's obviously not hard to lie on the internet, but there's every reason to believe that this is an unaffiliated troll lashing out. I do think that this is notable for inclusion though, as the victim is a former GG supporter turned critic.starship .paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When it gets some significant national coverage in reliable sources, it might be worth revisiting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This story now has several references in reliable sources including The Oregonian and the New York Daily News, as we can see. --TS 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More recent source: ibtimes.co.uk: GamerGate trolls send police to wrong address in botched swatting attack. --TS 19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ GamerGate swatting of transwoman and former member.
^ /2015/01/prank_call_sends_several_polic.html
^ Silverstein, Jason (January 4, 2015). "'I am afraid for my safety': California woman has 20 police sent to former home in Portland as part of Gamergate harassment campaign". Daily News. New York.

Why are we citing First Things so much?

I get impression that First Things has inherited the mantle of Erik Kain in the draft article. According to the ref list is now up to five citations. Is it because of the novelty of a conservative view being expressed in a reliable source? --TS 03:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a reliable source, then what's the problem? The New Yorker is cited at least six times, The Washington Post at least eight, New York at least five, Vox at least seven, Columbia Journalism Review at least eight. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a first-person opinion column, not a news story, and must be cited as such. I write not because I am a Gamergate partisan—the movement was largely over by the time I had thoroughly investigated it—but because Mary Eberstadt is right: silence emboldens the practitioners of the New Intolerance. Gamergate was not a perfect movement, and neither was the loose coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and contrarians who opposed the social justice incursions into science fiction. But someone ought to speak out. If we wait for a perfect victim to emerge, we will be waiting forever. It's an interesting and useful source for a contrary opinion to the predominant one, but must be presented as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with it being cited, but I worry that we often fall for a kind of recentism, picking up a novel article and giving it rather more weight than it can bear. The article suffers in such circumstances because one voice is being repeatedly juxtaposed to many others, in a way that gives it presentation false balance. It's a bit like altering our article on global warning to insert at length, and repeatedly, the views of the tiny minority of scientists who reject the well established greenhouse effect. --TS 04:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The greenhouse effect is a scientific phenomenon. GamerGate is a huge mess. Now, on your "tiny minority" argument, if you'd look at the Misogyny and antifeminism section, we quote over ten sources (including The Washington Post / The Week / Iowa Public Radio / Macleans / Develop / GamesIndustry.biz / On the Media / The Daily Beast / Mother Jones / The New Yorker) who express an anti-GG POV, and you're protesting against one source (perhaps the only one) which provides a dissenting POV? You'd rather have 10-0 versus 10-1, that's balance to you? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When talking about weight in articles, we don't just talk about how many sources are used, but how frequently these sources are cited and to what extent Wikipedia uses these to display information. I believe Tony Sidaway is talking about how frequently the source is cited, not just it being cited (which he seems to not mind.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out above in my first comment, there are at least four more sources which have been cited more than First Things. Upon further reading, the New York Times has been cited seven times in the article, the Verge eight... get my point? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources should be cited more, as they have each written multiple articles discussing the issue which represent the predominant, mainstream point of view on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a social issue, not a scientific one. There are multiple ways of interpreting a social issue; there is no need to double down on a single standpoint, especially when one of your principal sources is The Verge, which is a tech blog, not a journal of American society. Shii (tock) 12:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Verge is far more widely read and more respected journalistically than First Things, an explicitly-religious, socially and politically conservative journal. Moreover, there aren't multiple ways of interpreting false allegations about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Shii (tock) 16:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on First Things helpfully describes them. The journal is inter-denominational and inter-religious, representing a broad intellectual tradition of Christian and Jewish critique of contemporary society. With a circulation of approximately 30,000 subscribers, First Things is considered to be influential in its articulation of a broadly ecumenical and erudite social and political conservatism. Meanwhile, The Verge nets at least 20 million unique visitors per month, as of last March, and is almost certainly higher today. [4]

I happen to think First Things is well-written and generally well-argued. But there can be no argument that it's anything but a platform for primarily conservative religious and social views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something bad about expressing conservative religious views, that makes them not notable or relevant to American social upheaval? In the lead to that same article, we have a Newsweek quote calling First Things "the most important vehicle for exploring the tangled web of religion and society in the English-speaking world." I would argue that a religious outlook on social issues is more relevant than The Verge which is basically an industry and product review blog. How exactly do we determine who the most relevant voices are in American society? Shii (tock) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article reeks of recentism, and from one side of the discussion as well. There are more sources like First Things out there, we'd be smarter to find more like it than complain about reliable sources that are more accurate than the ones we currently use. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not "reek" of one side of the discussion. The "discussion", such as it is, is the general public looking at gamergate and being rightfully thoroughly appalled at the vicious sexist harassment and essentially ignoring idiotic claims of "but ethical journalism will be just presenting 'objective' reviews of games - ie whether or not they are fun" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I've said. It reeks of one side of the discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one side, I'm afraid. The minor, dissenting "but ethics" point-of-view is not equatable, and is given the coverage that it is due, per policy. That is all we can do, is go by the reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted before, there are multiple sides and facets to this issue, of which only one gets a hearing here, and it's not due to the lack of coverage. This will be dealt with soon, I'm sure. No established editor wants to go outside of the reliable sources, but many of us do want the reliable sources used appropriately. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to make it better is to suggest changes, complete with appropriate sources. If the coverage is there (which I dispute but if it is there) then you should be able to do that.Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the well is so poisoned it's better to wait and see if the worst parties are removed from the topic area first. Even questions get you labeled a troll, so right now it's more an awareness thing in hopes some change their tune. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's been the 8chan/reddit playbook all along; agitate the real Wikipedia editors, run to Arbcom for relief, then hopefully return the atricle to all its Quinn/Sarkeesian/Wu-bashing early days It remains to bee seen whether this was an effective strategy or not, hopefully Arbcom was up to the task of drilling down to what really happened here. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What any outside group wants is not my concern. I'm interested in a neutral article on a controversial topic, and we do not currently have that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do have that now, just needs a little quotefarm and bloat cleanup. The focu of the article as the Draft version stands is essentially correct. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The draft article has a very skewed focus that does not reflect the accuracy of the situation, which is a problem that will need resolution eventually. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does reflect the accuracy of the situation, as per all the reliable sources. Even the movement's supporters (c.f. First Things) admit that Gamergate is effectively dead at this point. The movement has devolved into random swatting, doxing and invective targeting its opponents, and isn't even pretending to be about "journalism ethics" at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what our article says, yes. The concern is what is actually occurring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and others have been repeatedly invited to present the reliable sources which say something else is occurring. That you and others have been unable or unwilling to do so suggests the accuracy of the situation is, indeed, well-reflected by our article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many have and continue to do so. That the process has largely been driven by bad acting than fundamental encyclopedia building is why many of us, myself included, are taking a more wait-and-see approach. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have all seen the attempts to present anonymous blogs and Breitbart as acceptable sources for salacious and highly defamatory claims about living people. They continue to not count as reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll join you in continuing to not want to include those sources in there, while continuing to criticize the skew of this article and the behavior that has created the failed article we currently have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the five times First Things is cited its just a footnote that's been tacked on to something already cited in another source. So it's not really that overrepresented. Bosstopher (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it should just be stripped out. The purpose of the article is not to enumerate every comment anyone has made; the purpose is to give an overarching description of coverage. One blog post by a media commentator does not change that, and it is giving it WP:UNDUE weight to include it without further support that the opinion expressed is significant (eg. similar commentators stating similar things.) Additionally, after looking over it, it was frequently quoted in areas where the quote or opinion it was cited for was tangential to the topic of the paragraph; remember, quotes and cites shouldn't be added simply as a way of indirectly repeating your own opinions in the article, but because they genuinely illuminate noteworthy swaths of the public reaction. I'm not seeing that here. (Remember, we just managed to trim the article down from the QUOTEFARM warning; if people start citing random blogs to argue point / counterpoint against each other by proxy, it'll explode back to there in no time.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Any pro-GG POV is obviously the minority, so you're raising the bar to "noteworthy swaths", as well as dismissing the source as a "random blog". This plainly increases the partial slant of the article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long until you get it? You have stated it directly above, as per policy we represent the viewpoints of the subject as they are representative of the mainstream views. Since the mainstream views of the subject are near unanimous in their reception/view, per POLICY, our article will reflect such a view, and ONLY by doing so will the article be/retain its encyclopedic Neutral Point of View. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the policy says; we don't pick the predominate opinion and only present that. It will get the most details in the article, yes, but we don't simply omit other opinions. We cannot take any view even if it a near unaminous view taken by reliable sources, and we should be looking for reliable sources that cover the other side of the issue or give counterpoints, as long as those sources are strong reliable sources. I don't think this source qualifies as such, but the point is that to be neutral, we should be trying to find ways to be able to cover counter points if they are minority views; if more than singular sources express these points, we should be discussing them here. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The overwhelming majority of significant viewpoints in reliable sources are quite clear and unanimous and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous in saying what? I feel like we have constructed an imaginary "consensus" here without explaining exactly what sort of views it ought to be able to silence. Is independent analysis that appears in a reliable source somehow "wrong" in its entirety, or is it merely inconvenient because it forces us to engage in critical thought? What specific views are supposed to be "overwhelming", and in which specific sources do they appear? Shii (tock) 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous that gamergate is nothing more than a clusterfuck of online, vicious harassment directed mostly at women that signifies nothing more than the culture wars have reached into gaming. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The First Things article is basically on board with that, so you shouldn't have any objection to it. Shii (tock) 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then we return to Tony's question of Why are we including First Post when we have better levels of sourcing for those claims? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said many times, because it is an outside source providing an independent viewpoint on what the cultural war is and why it is being fought. Shii (tock) 00:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And then we are back to whether this singular voice is actually representative of a significant viewpoint when we dont have other reliable sources making comments on the same wavelength. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is more than just UNDUE. There are several facets of being neutral, and one is impartiality. We should not be approaching this article with the mindset "There is only one major view, everything else is fringe", we instead, to be impartial, need to approach this recognizing that there are many other viewpoints on the situation and we should be trying to find sufficient (in terms of quantity and quality) of sourcing to include those other views to be impartial. Yes, the predominate viewpoint will still be the major fraction of this article, but to take the attitude that because the bulk of the sourcing have settled on one view that we should exclude all other views is not an acceptable way to write a neutral article. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And back to the "but its not impartial!!!!" without being able to actually identify any actual instances of non-impartiality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you want to keep the First Things discussion since it is, after all, impartial. Shii (tock) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The attitude above is exactly the case of not being impartial - we cannot treat the predominate view as the only view , if there are reliable sources that also describe the other views (Which they do). Refusal to acknowledge that there are other views that have the possibility of being sources is a serious problem for editing neutrality. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We DO cover the "but ethics", probably in far more detail and length than it is given credit the reliable sources . And claims of "impartiality" happening on the talk page are irrelevant to the NPOV policy which covers article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's one angle. This source is a different point of view (coming from what appears someone uninvolved in GG). Trying to shut down discussion of these points when there are no immediately bogus issues (likely grossly-insulting BLP or a far-from-reliable source) because you claim that it is a point that won't fit into the article due to UNDUE is a problem; we have to be open to discussing all issues that are completely fair to discuss, unless it is clear that they have been discussed to death in the past. As this is a "new" source, that claim can't be made, and instead it is fair to see what other points align with this source and see if it is worthy of inclusion , as to be impartial to the matter. NPOV may not apply to talk page, but talk page behavior that attempts to bypass discussion as to what aspects of NPOV or other policies apply is not appropriate for talk pages. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

then we are back to UNDUE- if the analysis/interpretation is only coming from this one guy, it is probably not a voice /interpretation that we should cover in any level of depth if at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or we find better sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have New York Times, Guardian, PBS, Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, Australian Broadcast Company, BBC, On The Media, New York Magazine , Inside Higher Ed... not really sure what "better sources" you might be wishing for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways. Many of the opinions featured in the present article that are strongly against GG are just that of "one guy" (the writer), though when you take their points overall, they'll all in the same broad direction; that is, we right to discuss the broad opinions but we're still overly quoting singular voices representing different facets of that broad opinion. There's just as equal a valid broad opinion favoring GG from reliable sources, and if we're going to feature singular voices from the broad antiGG side then there's no reason to have as much call-to to a singular voice from the proGG side; otherwise, we remove the singular voices - at least those that are not major players in the overall controversy (eg we can including Quinn, or Intel, etc.) - least we admit being not partial and hypocritical. Note that the sources still have to be high quality, and this is not saying that the same amount of ink has to be devoted to the other side because that's against UNDUE, but it is UNDUE and impartial to allow detailed analysis of one side and refuse to allow similar from the other side when the quality of the sourcing is just as good. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(To add, I'd much rather prefer to keep the more detailed points from the higher quality sources on both sides - avoiding quotefarming but touching on core points that only secondary sources on the whole situation can make. But this means allowing those same from the proGG side when they come from a similar high quality source). --MASEM (t) 16:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There's just as equal a valid broad opinion favoring GG from reliable sources" - Bullshit. Just plain utter unadulterated bullshit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion's comment here goes to the heart of my concerns. The viewpoint expressed in that essay is an extreme outlier, so all bt most cursory references risk unbalancing our article. Indeed we're using it in several places to gainsay the overwhelming weight of informed opinion. --TS 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the viewpoint is different does not change the fact that First Things is one of the most reliable and notable sources when it comes to analysis of American civic life, and is far more noteworthy than the likes of Vox and The Verge. Shii (tock) 21:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User:Tarc has now removed the content twice despite the fact that he has neither justified his characterization nor indeed participated in this discussion at all. Shii (tock) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most reliable and notable according to whom? It's a religious magazine with a small readership as far as I can tell. Let's not over weight it. — Strongjam (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can find First Things in any American library that carries political journals, alongside similar publications like The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and the New York Review of Books. If you ever read a book about religion in America after 1990 you will probably see it mentioned. It's not my fault that you haven't heard of it; you only have to read the first two paragraphs of its Wikipedia article to see that it is far more relevant to encyclopedic summaries of cultural commentary than tech blogs. Shii (tock) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a religious journals take on a controversy founded in the technology world is not as relevant as a major technology news site take on it. It's useful, but it shouldn't be so heavily weighted. — Strongjam (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't think that the tech blogs have too much weight in the draft article or that they are biased (after all, we have the NYT and New Yorker in agreement), but they are very close to the controversy and deserve a bit of balance with an uninvolved attempt to frame the controversy in light of culture wars more generally. First Things should be considered more notable than, for example, Anders Sandberg's academic analysis which he posted on his blog, and which we currently devote a full paragraph to. Shii (tock) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, hysterics much? I have been following the discussion throughout, and saw little need to post a "I agree" post. But if it will make you feel better, I agree with the sentiments of Aquillion and TS. Happy? Tarc (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me in what way I am being hysterical. Shii (tock) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Downton Abbey-esque "my goodness, the dear chap protests without communication!" above. This is a fringe, minor point-of-view being giving more prominence that it deserves, now being edit-warred over by single-purpose accounts. This is what we're trying to get out of this topic area. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blog discussion

Whether the First Things article was religious or not (having read it, I don't see the religion stuff), First Things Is a journal which critiques society and GamerGate is part of that. The relevance of the source shouldn't mbe questioned .Likewise the claim that it's a random blog should be nullified, lest we trim all "random blogs" from the article. I'd say First Things should have a lot more say on "social justice" than Vox. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is one blog post in a journal only tangentially related to videogames or journalism. The reason we cite such commentators is to explain noteworthy coverage, responses, and analysis about the subject; when the overwhelming majority of commentary agrees on something, it is naturally noteworthy, and we need large numbers of citations to establish that. On the other hand, when one person writes a blog post disagreeing (even if it were a noteworthy blog), giving them this sort of extensive focus amounts to WP:UNDUE weight; our article is not meant to be a catalog of every blogger's opinions on the topic, nor a place where people can fire off quotes from various blogs as a form of point-counterpoint; rather, it is meant to summarize the noteworthy views. Nothing about First Things gives me any impression that their views on this controversy are intrinsically noteworthy simply because this blog is saying them; nor, thus far, has anyone made a particularly compelling argument that the personal opinions this blogpost expresses are noteworthy in their own way the way (eg.) the large-scale reactions summarized elsewhere in the article are. Therefore it is mostly non-notable in the context of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @User:Aquillion -- are you aware that The Verge and Vox are also blogs? By the standard you just employed, everything cited to those sources should be removed from the article as well. Shii (tock) 13:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bund

I found a new source from a liberal swiss newspaper [5] that offers a non partisan view of Gamergate including these interesting tidbits

Wikipedia Vandalism
How Gamergate members see every negative press mention in the mainstream media as a conspiracy against them (thus justifying the conspiracy category)
How involved Journalists and Critics see gamersgate as a loud minority.
Jimmy Wales telling both sides to calm down.
A Big Group of gamers distancing themselves from the organised Harassment. A small number of members feeling that the gamergate hashtag is compromised who therefore want to start a new hashtag.

its a start to the recentism issue. Avono (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's from October (not necessarily a problem) and the article consistently misspells Gamergate (also not necessarily a problem, given it's a German language newspaper). What does it add to the topic, in your opinion? --TS 03:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such misspelling, it's probably your translator. I'd say the five points Avono above are what he thinks it adds? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Die Aktivisten und Unterstützer von Gamergate wähnen sich im Krieg gegen eine mediale Grossverschwörung, die «Gamer» als Sexisten brandmarken wolle und Vorwürfe um Interessenkonflikte der Spielepresse ignoriere.
3. Betroffene Journalisten und Kritiker sehen dagegen eine lautstarke Minderheit von Verschwörungstheoretikern am Werk and Der eigentliche Streit entzündete sich aber an einer Reihe von Artikeln über den Begriff «Gamer»: Verschiedene Onlinemagazine konstatierten, die Gameridentität werde von einer kleinen Gruppe vereinnahmt, die sich durch pubertäres und reaktionäres Männlichkeitsgehabe auszeichne.
5. Ein Grossteil der Spieler distanziert sich allerdings von den organisierten Hassaktionen. Einzelne Vertreter sind sogar der Meinung, man müsse den durch die Hasskampagne kompromittierten Begriff «Gamergate» aufgeben und ein neues, einendes Banner finden.

Yes, it was my translator. Don't we already cover these points in much greater depth, and with due weight, in the article? Some of the major mainstream press commentaries came after that Swiss article was written. --TS 19:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Sidaway: - I believe (2) is not covered in too much detail in the Draft. ~~Given the mess of the article I'm not sure where (5) is covered. I see (5) is covered but I'm not sure whether it's in the correct place.~~ I covered (5) for the misogyny section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the culture war stuff from the point if view of Gamergate supporters could be expanded from Jesse Singal's piece in New York magazine. [6] He pays some attention to the conspiracy theories. I thought we used him as a source. If we don't use him for (2) we ought to be, because he really did a good job of investigative journalism. --TS 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is there (refname NYMag,) we source it mostly to talk about how hard it is for journalists to nail down what GG is. Could be used more for the conspiracy bit though and as well anti-feminism section. — Strongjam (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request - Gamergate hastag

In the draft, under "Gamergate hashtag", we have this line:

"As of October 2014, it was estimated that there were at least 10,000 internet users supporting Gamergate"

This is rather vague - I really don't know what it's referencing. 10,000 people supporting which side? Or 10,000 people talking about it in general? What does "supporting" mean in this context? Can someone clarify?

Thanks. Palindromedairy (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article cites CJR on this. CJR is referring to an article in Deadspin which says "By most metrics, Gamergate comprises an insignificant fraction of video game fans. On Reddit, for example, the main staging ground for Gamergate has reached 10,000 readers, representing .17 percent of the more than six million readers on the general gaming subreddit." [7] --TS 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty terrible way to word it, then. It assumes both that the supporters are only centralized on a subscribed reddit or Twitter, and that those who subscribe or use a hashtag are supporters. There must be a better way to word it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intel pledging $300M to support diversity following GG

[8] This would be part of a section on the "result" of GG's actions of the industry seeing and trying to fix the problems it has with its own treatment of women as brought out by GG, per some of the above sections. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's big news. Just added NY Times as a source for this, I'm sure more will come. — Strongjam (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wired If you are still looking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Do I reopen an edit request if it went unanswered and archived?--DrWho42 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWho42: Yes you do --RetΔrtist (разговор) 05:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--DrWho42 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 7 January 2015

wiki-link to Max Read --DrWho42 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to wait until the completion of the AfD process. — Strongjam (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair.--DrWho42 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged

"The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku." How is the relationship alleged when both have admitted to it? GameLegend (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word allegation is correct in this context. It does not reflect on whether it is true or not, just that the ex-boyfriend made the claim. — Strongjam (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some people misinterpret the term to signify a dubious claim. Perhaps we should use the plain word "claim" here, because "alleged" seems to be a frequently misunderstood word.

The current draft version at Draft: Gamergate controversy has the following phrasing:

Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson. This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of the game.

The word "claim" would fit equally well instead of "allege" in the above, I think. It would be less prone to misinterpretation. --TS 14:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, as long as we don't lose that the follow on allegations by others about the positive review were false. — Strongjam (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be made very clear.

Making it seem as if the basis of the conflict were allegations in the 'unproven' sense is as dishonest as saying there was a positive review. GameLegend (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "allegations" about consenting adults having a relationship is of non-encyclopedic value, whether the "allegations" are true or not. The only matter of any potential public interest would have been if the relationship impacted what was printed in the press. It did not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship, but clarified that Grayson had not written anything about Quinn after the relationship had commenced and had never reviewed her games, though he did acknowledge a piece written before the two began their relationship." It's already in there, because of its impact on what was printed in the press. Bosstopher (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is the actual importance of whether a particular allegation is true or not. I've wrestled with this idea personally, but frankly, it would be inappropriate to say X is a true claim even if technically it is. Even if objectively true, if X is at best tertiary to the issue at hand, it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to say, in the voice of an encyclopedia, that X is true. Thus, the fact that X is true is important only so far as it cannot be separated from other allegations that are in fact false. When it cannot be, it would be inappropriate to label all allegations included as false because all allegations include X. When X can be appropriately separated from the actually false allegations, though, it is both appropriate and frankly the responsibility of a good editor to label such allegations as false. It is a very tight line, and it surely does require some... finesse... with the english language, but it is a requirement for good editing to walk that line and not fall on either side, while hedging on the side of "do no harm."

Frankly, whether you ascribe that this topic is about "harassment" or "ethics," the truth of X is at best tertiary, and not central to either topic and should be kept that way, save for my note above, of when such allegation cannot be appropriately separated. (Note, as I wrote the above before RedPen's comment: While I in general agree with RedPen here, I reserve the right to disagree if such reasoning is taken to an extreme. There are some times when X may have encyclopedic value, but I agree that for at least 95% of the cases, here, X is inappropriate.) Ries42 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, I agree with labeling X as false as far as it leads to it did not impact whether a review was published following X. Whether X impacted anything that was printed is a bit grayer. Regardless, it is inappropriate for WP to explore that, it is more appropriate for another medium to discuss those possibilities, should they exist. Ries42 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed before, about a month ago. There's a difference between multiple sets of allegations that the article (and draft) fails to properly separate, making the whole thing factually inaccurate and confusing and still hasn't been resolved and probably won't be due to the entrenchment on the issue, encyclopedic value aside. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two allegations which are relevant to this issue: the allegation by Gjoni that Quinn had a relationship with Grayson (true, but we can't present their relationship as "wrong" in any sense, given the fact that the breakup drama amounts to a lovers' quarrel and is of no public interest, as demonstrated by the way the reliable sources treat it) and the allegation by others than this relationship led to positive reviews or coverage (wholly and entirely false, as per the reliable sources). Whatever other allegations Gjoni may have made are irrelevant, as demonstrated by the fact that reliable secondary sources have wholly ignored them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I (mostly) agree with NBSB here. I would probably completely agree if he just said "Did it lead to a positive review". That is patently false, if for no other reason that said review does not and never existed because Mr. Grayson did not write it. Whether it lead to "positive coverage" is a bit more sticky because there is some dispute over the timelines and I personally would have more difficulty labeling that definitively false in Wikipedia's voice. With that being said that dispute does not belong in the WP article, and without a proper, reliable source that challenges said allegation, it would be inappropriate to focus on that distinction here. Ries42 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, my above comment was made toward NBSB's original comment, not his slightly edited version that exists now. Ries42 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a precision of wording issue. The only 100% "false" accusation is that Quinn used her relationship with Grayson to get positive reviews of her game - no reviews exist, so this obviously can't be the case. On the accusation that Quinn used her relationship with Grayson to garner general positive press has not been proved false, but it has been readily dismissed or not considered as having much truth, since the only piece about DQ involving Grayson was the that game dev bit that DQ was written up in, with Kotaku'e claim the relationship started after this event. There are those proGG that do not trust the Kotaku timeline in this matter, thinking the January article was too close to the April data claimed as the start of the relationship (with their claimed evidence that Quinn and Grayson were at least friends in social manner prior), and no one has actually providing any clear demonstratable evidence that this Game jam article was or was not influenced one way or another. Of course, most reliable sources don't take this position, but it is fair that in terms of language precision, that allegation was not proven false, but simply debunked, refuted, or any other wording that says "it really didn't happen as suggested by the allegation", but not 100% with absolutely surety as "false". There is a singular false allegation, but the "allegations" GG has made as a whole (which GG also include the other claims Gjoni made in his post) have generally been either refuted/debunked or treated as non-nonessential or petty in regards to the larger GG matter - but not all "false" (we have no information either way to affirm or deny these issues). The goal should be to make sure it is clear we attach "false" to the plurality of accusations, but be clear that the popular press opinion is that they are all for the most part refuted or the like. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources unanimously dismiss the idea that there were any ethical issues created by Quinn and Grayson's relationship, and treat any such allegations against them as false and malicious. The end. A sampling of those sources, as entered into evidence at the arbitration proceeding, is here: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Our article must and will treat this as a settled matter. Whether "proGG" people "trust the Kotaku timeline" is a matter of no consequence whatsoever. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say, not what some people might believe because they're ideologically committed to a particular point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really NBSB? This fight again?

"sleeping with a journalist for positive reviews. The claim, though false," NYTimes - Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

"hurled false accusations that Quinn exchanged sex for reviews" Telegraph, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

"prompting accusations from others she had done so in an attempt to get positive reviews for her game, Depression Quest. While the relationship happened, the review did not." BBC, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

"how she had seduced him for favorable coverage (the wench!). In reality, though, the writer in question had mentioned Quinn in an article once, before their involvement, and had never reviewed anything of hers. Boston Globe, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: ... Semi-Confirmed?

"It’s a movement based in false accusations against Quinn — that she traded sexual favors to advance her career — and mushroomed from there." Washington Post, Positive Reviews: False, Sexual Favors to Advance her Career: False, Positive Coverage: You can probably say this leans toward them saying that was false, but it is not explicitly stated that way.

"during which false accusations about indie game developer Zoe Quinn led to personal harassment and death threats against her and those who offered public support" CBS Chicago Local, States "false allegations" but does not say which false allegations it is talking about. As there are false allegations (and true allegations) it would be hard to definitively state it is refering to the non-false allegations and only the confirmed false allegations without more.

"angry boyfriend’s post led to accusations that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a video game critic for the gaming website Kotaku." Bloomburg, doesn't even label them false, just says 'accusations' of a romantic relationship.

"Zoe Quinn was accused by an angry ex-boyfriend of sleeping with someone in order to get good reviews for her game. And despite the fact that she was able to refute these allegations, it kind of stirred up quite an online backlash towards her." ABC, Refuted allegations of "good reviews".

"was accused by her ex-boyfriend of trading sexual favors for receiving positive game reviews. Those false charges" Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

Am I splitting hairs? Maybe, but every single one of those references ONLY refers to positive reviews. Only one can possibly be read to possibly include false coverage. And at least one semi-confirms that positive coverage may have resulted from the relationship. What those references do not do is what you say they do, which is label all allegations of positive coverage as false. Ries42 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're splitting hairs. The upshot is that reliable sources unanimously reject the allegations against Quinn and Grayson and repeatedly note that their relationship did not create any ethics violations. As those allegations are the only ones mentioned in reliable sources, they're the only ones we consider meaningful and the only ones we will mention. That's all there is to it. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They repeatedly make that point in one way, using very specific language. There were no "positive reviews". They didn't make it in "every way possible". The fact is, there is a very specific wording that is common in many of those articles. We should use a very similar, very specific wording. "False allegations that the relationship lead to positive reviews" There isn't any argument over that type of wording. When we try to extend that to "positive reviews" AND "positive coverage" we are saying something that the reliable sources are specifically not saying. What they do not say is just as important as what they do say. Ries42 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are synonymous to everyone except you, and the unquestionable point made by the reliable sources — that Quinn and Grayson's relationship created no violations of journalism ethics — is obvious to everyone who is not a committed die-hard Gamergate supporter who just cannot stop clinging desperately to the idea that something they believe in is true, when it is absolutely 100% false. Gamergate's founding mythology was exploded months ago by literally every major news media outlet on the planet, and I'm sorry, but that's just the end of the story. The rest of the world has long since moved on and we are not going to rehash long-discredited attacks on living people just because some people can't deal with the fact that their ideology is built on a foundation of sand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymous, but not identical. Different words, although similar, can have different meanings and connotations. While in everyday parlance the distinction may be minor, as editors of an encyclopedia it is important to use the most correct word when using a similar, but not necessarily correct, synonym may lead to a misrepresentation.

To your edit(s): Please leave your bad faith accusations somewhere else. Show me the source, and if the source doesn't support your allegations, don't instead start using ad hom accusations at me. Show me where a source supports YOUR wording, and we're done. Ries42 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia's fault that Gamergate supporters hitched their wagons to a false narrative, launching their "campaign" based on unverified attacks, an ex-boyfriend's ranting blog, false assumptions and thinly-disguised slut-shaming and misogyny. We're done here because the reliable sources are done with Gamergate. All of the movement's efforts have succeeded in nothing more than convincing Intel to invest a small country's GDP in supporting diversity in gaming, including Anita Sarkeesian. I know that must be hard to deal with, but the solution is not to yet again bring up long-discredited attacks on Zoe Quinn. We're just not going to go there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? How does that have anything to do with this issue? Ries42 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your single-minded obsession with negatively portraying Zoe Quinn suggests that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to further some sort of off-wiki dispute or obsession with her. You have precisely one contribution in your entire editorial history not related to Gamergate. That's what it has to do with this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bold allegation. Also a complete fabrication. The dispute here is simple, is there a difference between "positive reviews" and "positive coverage". One, there is CLEAR support for. I have completely agreed to that multiple times. The other the support is very dubious at best, and it would be a misrepresentation to say otherwise. Your inability, or unwillingness, to see that only says things about you.

To your EDIT: Everyone starts somewhere. In fact, I have not made a single edit to an article related to Gamergate. If you want to get technical, 100% of my article editing history is completely non-Gamergate related. I have participated in discussions only. Ries42 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we arguing about the draft article? Because at the moment I don't think we even touch the positive coverage aspect of it. Which is probably how it should be as it doesn't get much weighting in our sources. — Strongjam (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. But apparently, according to NBSB you're a ProGG zealot if you believe that. Ries42 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most bizarre things about this talk page is the amount of times massive arguments have broke out between editors on issues where they completely agree about article content. Bosstopher (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obsession with the details of Zoe Quinn's sex life are not relevant to the subject of corruption in videogame journalism. I'm sure that most (if not all) journalists have relationships with game developers and representatives of game companies. Why people have obsessed about one woman's sexual history instead of looking at the larger picture of collusion between journalists and game companies is baffling to me and, at best, seems voyeuristic and more than a little disturbing. If this kind of relationship is so central to this narrative, why are people not investigating the sex lives of journalists to see if they HAVE positively reviewed the games of other companies or developers? No, it is only Quinn whose life goes under the microscope.

Unless such behavior has crossed the line into criminal behavior, I don't see the relevance of presenting details about the sex life of someone whose participation in the controversy has been as a victim of harassment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone on this page (for the most part) disagrees with you. I would state that some details are relevant simply for the fact that many reliable sources place the origins of this "controversy" at the point where the "zoepost" was released. The zoepost then lead to the ethics allegations and harassment of Quinn and others. I think you could make the case that perhaps there have been other investigations into the "ethics" side of this whole controversy, but those investigations have largely not been notable or covered by reliable sources, if they exist. As such, there isn't too much about them that could be put into this article. Ries42 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wingfield's opinion on Gjoni's blogpost

Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack",[7] containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson

Currently we are using a New York Times quote to comment on Gjoni's blogpost as a "strange, rambling attack". The quote comes from a Bits blog post by Nick Wingfield from Oct 2:

In a phone interview, Ms. Alexander, who also consults for independent game makers, said that “Intel was fleeced by a hate mob.” She said she wrote her opinion piece because of the online treatment of Zoe Quinn, an independent game maker who was the subject of a strange, rambling attack written by a former boyfriend in August.

In context it's not clear whether the quote reflects Wingfield's own or Leigh Alexander's opinion.

Two weeks later another article by Wingfield is published in the more prominent Technology section of New York Times. This article also appears in the print version. Here Wingfield uses a milder wording as before and describes Gjoni's blogpost as a "rambling online essay". We should prefer the wording of the second article over the first, because it's less ambiguous, more recent and was published more prominently. - preceding unsigned comment by User:Maklaan at 01:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - thanks for bringing this up. Yeah, the Bits Blog is less reliable than the later Technology article. Wingfield's opinion also has more "distance" from the controversy. Leigh Alexander is already 'proven' to be partisan against gamers, as per the Gamasutra piece she wrote which this GamerGate article depicts. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"rambling online essay" is okay, as long as we don't lose the fact that it was fundamentally a character assassination. That it was effective in its context is undeniable. The victim of the attack is still suffering and may blamelessly suffer throughout her life. We should be careful to avoid understating the savagery of the attack on Zoe Quinn, and the extent to which the attacker was complicit in the ramifications for months beyond the original malicious attack. We don't rely on that particular article to support the fact of the savagery or it ramifications. --TS 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might also add Eric Johnson's discussion on Re/code, Her accuser comes off more as an angry, unbalanced ex than a responsible watchdog. Or The Verge's description of it as a screed. Or The Age's discussion: It's such a wretched, sleazy business that there's little surprise this latest septic eruption of Internet misogyny escalated from a jilted boyfriend, a programmer by the name of Eron Gjoni. He had been dating a game developer called Zoe Quinn and then in the way of these things, Eron and Zoe were dating no more. We've all been there, and like many of us Eron did not cope well. He said a lot of spiteful, nasty things. Or Vox: Eron Gjoni, who had dated Quinn, posted a revenge blog accusing her of cheating on him with Nathan Grayson. [18] The point is that Gjoni's post was not a dispassionate note but a highly personal diatribe by a deeply involved person — reliable sources view it not as some sort of altruistic whistle-blowing but as an act of spiteful drama-dumping revenge. If you'd prefer that we paraphrase that clearly-expressed sense of the reliable sources, I'm not opposed to doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for opinions with has more "distance" from the controversy ... also known as ... mainstream media. Of which, I believe only the Age qualifies above, but does the Age say anything specific? I went to check, so He said a lot of spiteful, nasty things is not necessarily referring to that exact blog post. The exact wording to describe the blog post is he unloaded his grief online, alleging that his ex-girlfriend had sex with a critic who then wrote a friendly review of her game. (Note, this didn't happen). starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Age's summary is most on the mark. I don't think either "strange, rambling attack" or "online essay" is a decent summary. Neither one gets to the point of how personal the blog post is. It (1) accuses ZQ of serial infidelity and (2) publicizes a large number of private break-up related conversations, (3) under the flimsy pretense of "alerting the community" -- an ingenuity that became typical of GG itself. I agree with NBSB that it's an incisive drama dump that poses as "altruistic whistle-blowing." Shii (tock) 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much discussion on this blog post do we want to have exactly? More than one comment may be WP:UNDUE or else we may be making it more that what it is. Whats next, dueling quotations on what everyone feels about it? Its unimportant to the big picture and it would be irresponsible to give thezoepost more than that, for fear of BLP issues related to Ms. Quinn or Mr Gjoni. Support the updated NYTimes wording, but Oppose adding anything more beyond that. I may support an different wording if it is proposed in alternative to the NYTimes wording, but I don't quite see that above. Ries42 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the coverage of GamerGate in reliable sources indicates that the controversy fundamentally grew out out of harassment against Quinn in particular in response to that blog post; it eventually expanded to other targets, especially Wu and Sarkeesian, but the blog post is still at the heart of the subject's coverage in reliable sources today. Obviously, we have to be careful not to become part of the attacks against Quinn (or any other living person), which means that we have to be very careful to use the most reliable sources in that section and remove anything defamatory; but I don't feel it is possible to cover GamerGate coherently without going into extensive detail on how Quinn was attacked. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

other options:

"Rant" seems to be the descriptor of choice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Long diatribe" (NYTimes) "rambling online essay" (NYTimes) both seem to be the most reliable sources here, and look to be the most acceptable, neutral descriptors. "Rambling blog post" (ABCNews), "rambling 9,000-word essay" (Businessweek), seem acceptable as well. If anything rambling seems to be the most common descriptor. The other ones seem to be a bit less reliable and/or perhaps a bit less neutral. My issue being there may be BLP issues against Eron Gjoni to attack him too much with how we choose to describe the essay. Ries42 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather mentions of its length and ramblyness pop up more than anything else, although stuff like "screed" and "rant" both pop up a significant amount too. To avoid sampling bias in the quotes people are selecting, below are descriptions of the Zoepost from the first 50 sources used in the mainspace article :

Zoepost descriptors

a tell-all blog post
a tirade on a blog
a 3,000 word screed
a blog post about their breakup
a long tell-all
the online posts of a spurned ex-boyfriend
a blog post
A spiteful blogpost
a revenge blog
jeremiad (I dont know what it means either...)
a blog specifically to humiliate and shame her over their failed relationship
an extremely long, personal series of blog posts
agonizing to read, heavily annotated, clearly bitter, and really only tangentially related to games (my personal favorite but quite clearly not usable)
a spiteful attack
a blog post, that ran to thousands of words
a blog post about her
a massive blogpost
a lengthy diatribe
a revenge blog
a long treatise
a rambling online essay
a rambling blogpost
a rambling 9,000-word essay

Bosstopher (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

WP:FORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- There are several sources that "credit" the tone and tenor of everything that followed as being set up by the "zoepost". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, precisely as per TRPoD. Gamergate would be a much different thing if it had been launched by something other than false allegations against an obscure indie developer which were, as per the sources, spawned and egged on by an angry, spiteful revenge blog from that indie developer's ex-boyfriend. It is precisely why the "ethics in gaming journalism" claims and issues were fatally tainted and overshadowed from the very beginning by misogynistic trolling and harassment. Gamergate's inability or unwillingness to repudiate, disavow, apologize for and move beyond these and other false accusations — and, in fact, its continuing insistence that they aren't false — has, as per the reliable sources, been largely responsible for dooming it to the movement's current status of an irrelevant, incoherent fringe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - See there the biggest issue with the way this is being handled.

The false allegations are the existence of a review, which the sources you deem reliable say are the basis of the controversy.

The true allegations are the existence of a relationship between a developer and a journalist, which Gamergate itself says is the basis of the controversy.

Yet you feel this one word that makes all the difference, should be determined solely by one side of the story, hiding behind cherry-picked reliable sources.

What you're doing with this article is up to you, but for the love of god, stop trying to justify it with these fallacies. It's embarrassing. GameLegend (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The fact that a developer and a journalist were in a relationship is not a matter of public interest, as there is nothing inherently wrong or unethical about it. Journalists are not now and never have been ethically prohibited from forming personal relationships, intimate or otherwise, with other people. No code of journalism ethics demands that journalists behave as monks, nor does any code of journalism ethics require that journalists publicize their private personal relationships. It is true that the relationship created the potential for a conflict of interest, but the fact that Grayson did not write about Quinn's work after engaging in the relationship is self-evident proof that no such conflict of interest existed. The mere existence of the relationship is a non-issue. Furthermore, even if there had been an ethical violation, it would have been Grayson who would be guilty of misconduct, not Quinn — who is not a journalist and is not subject to codes of journalism ethics. Targeting Quinn rather than Grayson clearly exposed for the world to see that the attacks were not based on any legitimate issues of journalism ethics, but on salacious gossip and the desire to slut-shame a woman and carry out an ex-lover's revenge. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - "if it had been launched by something other than false allegations"

If you were equally troubled by it if the allegations were true, why even mention that they (the allegations attributed to Gamergate by others) were false? GameLegend (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but yes, I'm stating that if Gamergate had actually been about investigating ethics in gaming journalism rather than using false pretences to attack outspoken women in gaming and further a revenge campaign by an ex-boyfriend, it would have been something different entirely. Sadly, that's not what we got. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem hellbent on the use of the term 'false allegations'. If you have a problem with any allegations regarding relations between journalists and the subjects of their writing, I don't see why feel the need to use the word false every other post.

The allegations that there existed a relationship between a journalist and the subject of his writing are true.

No honest attempt at an objective recollection of the events would completely and utterly overwrite and marginalize a group's own objectives in favor of a premise solely based on cherry-picked reliable sources whose coverage has such enormous plotholes you could fit a comet through it.

If like the CBC, you were at least honest enough to admit you're not trying to be objective and just push an agenda, I could respect that. But this justification of the editors' behavior here is a joke and goes a long way into reaffirming the believe that Wikipedia is unreliable. GameLegend (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm "hellbent" on clearly stating, as the reliable sources do, that neither Zoe Quinn nor Nathan Grayson have done anything which would contravene journalism ethics. That someone writes about someone journalistically and then, later, engages in a relationship with them, that is not an issue of journalism ethics. It is not even an "allegation," it is merely a true statement of no particular public interest to anyone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep juggling words like that? Is it so hard for you to admit that you have an obsession over the use of the word 'false allegation' as opposed to the true allegations there are? GameLegend (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition of allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong. There is factually nothing illegal or wrong about Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson engaging in a romantic relationship. Ergo, to state such is not an "allegation" at all. It's merely a statement of fact, and not a fact of any particular public interest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If GamerGate is indeed about desire to slut-shame a woman and carry out an ex-lover's revenge - then certainly, Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson engaging in a romantic relationship has been of public interest, because Zoe Quinn has been harassed for it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] GamerGate swatting of transwoman and former member.

[2] /2015/01/prank_call_sends_several_polic.html

[NYDaily-3] Silverstein, Jason (January 4, 2015). "'I am afraid for my safety': California woman has 20 police sent to former home in Portland as part of Gamergate harassment campaign". Daily News. New York.

[1]

@@ Line 306: / Line 306: @@
 "Rant" seems to be the descriptor of choice. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 13:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 ::* "Long diatribe" (NYTimes) "rambling online essay" (NYTimes) both seem to be the most reliable sources here, and look to be the most acceptable, neutral descriptors. "Rambling blog post" (ABCNews), "rambling 9,000-word essay" (Businessweek), seem acceptable as well. If anything '''rambling''' seems to be the most common descriptor. The other ones seem to be a bit less reliable and/or perhaps a bit less neutral. My issue being there may be BLP issues against Eron Gjoni to attack him too much with how we choose to describe the essay. [[User:Ries42|Ries42]] ([[User talk:Ries42|talk]]) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
+::: From what I can gather mentions of its length and ramblyness pop up more than anything else, although stuff like "screed" and "rant" both pop up a significant amount too. To avoid sampling bias in the quotes people are selecting, below are descriptions of the Zoepost from the first 50 sources used in the mainspace article :
+{{collapse top|title=Zoepost descriptors}}
+*[http://www.dailydot.com/geek/zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal a tell-all blog post]
+*[http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest a tirade on a blog]
+*[http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech-Culture/2014/1125/Gamergate-and-the-new-horde-of-digital-saboteurs  a 3,000 word screed]
+*[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/03/zoe-quinn-gamergate-interview a blog post about their breakup]
+*[http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-issue-sections/11195/battle-of-gamergate-2014/ a long tell-all]
+*[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/intel-pulls-ads-from-site-after-gamergate-boycott/ the online posts of a spurned ex-boyfriend]
+*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/12/with-gamergate-the-video-game-industrys-growing-pains-go-viral/ a blog post]
+*[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn A spiteful blogpost]
+*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11180510/gamergate-misogynist-felicia-day-zoe-quinn-brianna-wu.html a revenge blog]
+*[http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html jeremiad] (I dont know what it means either...)
+*[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/gaming-misogyny-gets-infinite-lives-zoe-quinn-virtual-rape-and-sexism.html a blog specifically to humiliate and shame her over their failed relationship]
+*[http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/09/20/gaming-summer-rage/VNMeHYTc5ZKoBixYHzi1JL/story.html an extremely long, personal series of blog posts]
+*[http://www.onthemedia.org/story/my-attempt-write-about-gamergate/ agonizing to read, heavily annotated, clearly bitter, and really only tangentially related to games] (my personal favorite but quite clearly not usable)
+*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11082629/Gamergate-Misogyny-death-threats-and-a-mob-of-angry-trolls-Inside-the-dark-world-of-video-games.html a spiteful attack]
+*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29821050 a blog post, that ran to thousands of words]
+*[http://www.businessinsider.com/fed-up-game-developers-sign-open-letter-2014-9?IR=T a blog post about her]
+*[http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-lies-and-gender-gam a massive blogpost]
+*[http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/ a lengthy diatribe]
+*[http://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting a revenge blog]
+*[http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ a long treatise]
+*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html a rambling online essay]
+*[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/17/brianna-wu-gamergate-human-cost a rambling blogpost]
+*[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment a rambling 9,000-word essay]
+{{cob}}
+[[User:Bosstopher|Bosstopher]] ([[User talk:Bosstopher|talk]]) 14:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 {{hat|reason=[[WP:FORUM]]}}
 **There are several sources that "credit" the tone and tenor of everything that followed as being set up by the "zoepost". -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)