Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

chopping discussion: glasgow and peckford

Should an RfC be done on the inclusion of content from both refs to settle this debate? And if an RfC is done, be sure to ping all the major contributors to the WP article for discussion in the RfC. X-Editor (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to be included if possible. Kainedamo (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually think an RFC would result in any changes. We'd be going through the motions for no real gain. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: If both ref 171 and 172 have been disputed, then how come one gets to stay in the article until consensus is reached, while the other gets removed until consensus is reached? This seems inconsistent. I would also like a good explanation of why a peer-reviewed study published in the APA (Glasgow) is not allowed to be mentioned in the article, while less reliable coverage from mass media is allowed to be mentioned. I'm not saying that the entire article should get an overhaul as Kainedamo seems to be suggesting using this one study as a source because that would obviously be undue weight. I'm simply arguing for a brief mention of the study like what I added to the article before it was reverted, along with another study that notes the opposite for balance. X-Editor (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to point out the including Glasgow is ridiculously UNDUE. That's like entertaining the idea that this was about ethic in journalism. Including Peckford seems redundant.

"for balance" we don't include things for balance. we include things justified by RS. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: And how is Glasgow not an RS? However, I do agree with you that including Peckford is a bit redundant. I guess we'd both agree on removing Peckford? X-Editor (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Peckford source isn't scientific and is full of holes. I vote for its removal in the spirit of accuracy. Kainedamo (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

It is about ethics, the information that would show it was (Alexander/Sunset controversy, Quinn/Kickstarter scam, etc etc), are missing from the page - It's a bit of an empereror has no clothes situation. I keep pointing out that the way this page is run ends up hiding key information from people that may lead them to a different conclusion, than the current narrative of the page. The Glasgow/Ferguson study is the only study I'm aware of in which GG supporters are actually questioned directly. It should be included, despite Vox articles that disagree, despite an incredibly questionable essay that asserts "honk honk" means "heil hitler", but because the study itself contains valuable information. Kainedamo (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC) No, it was about harassing a woman because her boyfriend had a public meltdown and then a very public shitstorm. After the fact some people tried to make it about ethics, but the reality is real obvious per all reliable sources. Trying to re-litigate what Gamergate was without reliable sources is dead and buried. Give it up. If you want to make changes - stay on topic. Koncorde (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC) The GG advocates lost the "but ethics!" debate a long time ago. That someone here is still carrying water for this shows why the 30/500 protection is still needed, and honestly should be applied to this talk page too. ValarianB (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC) If you think the talk page deserves higher protection, then please start a discussion here. X-Editor (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC) You can't lose a debate that wasn't had. You can't have a consensus when you permit only one point of view. Leigh Alexander/Sunset video game controversy in which her journo friends cover a game she's paid to work on but with no disclosures, covered in this article with direct evidence for each claim: deepfreeze.it article titled Unfair Advantage, and Leigh Alexander has her own page full of evidence of lacking ethics in her journalism. This is the same Leigh Alexander that took part in 'Gamers are over', and she worked for The Guardian to boot. Alexander is all over the "reliable sources" in the references of this page, with zero mention of her ethical transgressions. Zoe Quinn scammed 85k. Look at Zoe Quinn's Kickstarted in the Butt project, look at the money raised, look at the date last updated, read the comments from backers. There's a kickscammed article about it too. Wow, it's about ethics and video games! You don't permit evidence that would drastically change the narrative of this page. Someone will reply saying wikipedia is incapable of permitting anything I've just said. Someone may even reply trying to dismiss me without dealing with the points raised. The Emperor Has No Clothes. Kainedamo (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC) To quote a wise man: cool story, bro. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC) To quote the sealion, in order to defeat me you'd have to show which of my positions are wrong. Kainedamo (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Again, not how Wikipedia works. Dumuzid (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC) But "cool story bro" is. Kainedamo (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC) I already have an idea for another change, may take a couple days to research and prepare. This current conversation has hit a dead end. Kainedamo (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC) They're the same reply, just in different vernacular. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC) The problem with the Alexander/Sunset controversy and the supposed Quinn/Kickstarter scam is that none of these claims are backed up by reliable sources and seem to be mostly original research on your part, which is not allowed on Wikipedia under any circumstances. X-Editor (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC) There's that Orwellian usage of reliable again. Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project's last update was August 30, 2018 for a project that raised $85,448. Do you acknowledge that as a fact? Do we really need the filter of media to acknowledge facts? If your sources can't or won't report on this, then it is those sources that are unreliable. Comments from backers: "It's 2022, time for an update!" "If this is dead can you just confirm it's dead? At this point I'll just accept having paid $30 for a mug but if the game is never coming out I don't want to keep waiting and hoping" "I paid $170 for a mug & a t-shirt" "The hardest part I can't warp around my head is that she is active on social media but ignores all her backers on this project. An explanation and apology would suffice." "At this point I just want closure. An admission of failure. Maybe partial refunds. Something." "Why has there been radio silence for such a long period of time? Please either post an update or offer refunds, because this otherwise has the unfortunate appearance of being a scam at this point… I would be really surprised if Kickstarter allowed this too." Etc, etc, etc. Kainedamo (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC) WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FORUM etc, no discussion will stay on topic while Kaine is here because he cannot function within the parameters of an encyclopedia and has almost a decade of off-wiki behaviour to this effect. Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Do we really need the filter of media to acknowledge facts? Yes. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is citing reliable sources. You cannot just claim "facts" with no citation, or look at two sources and come to your own conclusions. No one is going to accept the angle you're trying to play. Frankly, you're likely to get blocked from this page if you continue, if not the whole site. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC) I didn't claim facts with "no citation". Go look at Zoe Quinn's kickstarter page. It exists. You can read. Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project's last update was August 30, 2018 for a project that raised $85,448. Do you acknowledge that as a fact? A source that insists it was never about ethics and yet cannot or will not cover ethical issues around video games, is not a reliable source, and your continued usage of reliable is Orwellian. Comments from backers: "It's 2022, time for an update!" "If this is dead can you just confirm it's dead? At this point I'll just accept having paid $30 for a mug but if the game is never coming out I don't want to keep waiting and hoping" "I paid $170 for a mug & a t-shirt" "The hardest part I can't warp around my head is that she is active on social media but ignores all her backers on this project. An explanation and apology would suffice." "At this point I just want closure. An admission of failure. Maybe partial refunds. Something." "Why has there been radio silence for such a long period of time? Please either post an update or offer refunds, because this otherwise has the unfortunate appearance of being a scam at this point… I would be really surprised if Kickstarter allowed this too." Kainedamo (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC) I rest my case. Can an Admin Hat and close this forum. Koncorde (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC) How am I wrong? I want this place to be a better encyclopaedia. Kainedamo (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: You didn't answer my question about why Glasgow isn't an RS. X-Editor (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

i didn't say it wasn't RS, I said it was UNDUE, even as RS. pointing out that trolls claim to be left-wing is silly. also, I am advising you against using "balance" as a criteria for inclusion. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

maybe create a section of gamergate claims that have been debunked. but that wanders down BLP and all kinds of other stuff that are better off summararied: as "claims were widely dismissed as trivial, conspiracy theories, baseless, or unrelated to actual issues" - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean the the section on January 6th of course. Kainedamo (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that Jan 6 has been "widely dismissed as trivial"? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Any claim to a connection with GamerGate is trivial, conspiracy theory, baseless, unrelated to GamerGate as a topic. Kainedamo (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There were literally people with KEK flags there. Artw (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and there are numerous sources that draw a connection. One is free to disagree, of course. Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really interested that there's 'numerous sources' when the reasoning is bad. It's hysteria. January 6th was seven years on from GamerGate. If you were to poll the Jan 6th protestors and rioters, would most of them have any idea what GG is? How many GamerGate supporters are still active as GG supporters, and of those is there even a consensus on what they make of Jan. 6th? Sometimes institutions, press, media lie. It sort of seems to me that wiki can't distinguish the truth from hysteria. I'll post my next suggestion soon to really hammer this home, and it will be full of "reliable sources". Kainedamo (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really interested that there's 'numerous sources' when the reasoning is bad.

So you've made up your mind that no source is good enough to override your personal opinion. This is pure WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. At this point, I think it's best you step away from the article before you wind up with a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Tbh 'refusal to get the point' is more applicable to our conversation in which you don't understand freedom of speech and why people standing up for free speech isn't an indicator of RWE. Kainedamo (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, free speech advocacy and right wing extremism can overlap. One need only think of the Nazis marching in Skokie. I think the ACLU was there for righteous reasons, but I think the reasoning of their clients was vile. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Who is standing up for freedom of speech? I'm getting lost in this wall of text. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

GamerGate supporters. Specifically members of the subbreddit KotakuInAction. There was a source that disingenuously argued that KiA members talking about free speech was a Right Wing Extremist dogwhistle, when there's really no good reason at all to assume that over assuming a more innocent motive for the support of free speech. Kainedamo (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, as I should take my own medicine, as it were. We are pretty far afield again (me included) and should try to steer back from forum territory. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The hostility towards 'freeze peach' (sic) expressed on sites like Reddit started an entirely different flamewar with left wing free speech supporters that is sometimes conflated into gamergate and has them misidentified as being alt-right gamergaters. which made them even angrier.

I hope this clears up some of the misunderstandings and settle some of the dust around this issue so it can be seen more clearly. Washuchan73 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me, late comment, but wouldn't Zoe Quinn's Kickstarter page count as a primary RS? Use of primary sources is discouraged, but is allowed in some cases. It could be of particular value for a controversial topic like this, in which the secondary RS are subject to CoI and systemic bias. Personally, I don't think Zoe Quinn intended to run a scam at first, but that's what it turned into, evidently. A couple more sources, one is just twitter, but the other seems reasonably reliable: [1][2] Xcalibur (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the Kickstarter page as a primary source is that would seem to me to invariably require a good deal of WP:SYNTH; if there were a statement by the page itself that you wanted to use (not, say, by a commenter) then I suppose it could be discussed, but I am dubious. As for your other sources, I am guessing that the Twitter account "Sophia Narwitz" does not meet our standards for a reliable source, and RT is a classic example of a source which has been WP:DEPRECATED. I am not categorically opposed to something about the Kickstarter being included on the page, but the reliable sources seem to not have taken an interest. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I only noticed after posting that RT is deprecated. This seems arbitrary to me, since it seems very solid, I guess it's a case of wrongthink/politics. If it weren't deprecated, that would be a jumping-off point for multiple relevant post-GG scandals. And I admitted that twitter is not reliable in any way -- the point of linking non-RS is to give you a sense of what to follow up on, potentially. Other than that, I can't help but notice that accepted sources (eg Polygon) report on the opening of the kickstarter campaign, but go strangely silent on it being abandoned. But I guess WP is not allowed to fill in the gaps. Xcalibur (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

rocky removes peckford

doesn't rise to the level of RS. and is redundant. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Studies regarding attitudes of GamerGate supporters

One user linked a study above that claims GamerGate supporters are actually more left-wing. However, the study notes limitations like self-selection bias, meaning those with left-wing views participated, while those with right-wing views did not. However, I also found this study that completely contradicts the previous study that suggests that Gamergaters on Reddit are defined by right-wing extremism [3]. The former study was also conducted from December 2015 to January 2016, before Trump and the alt-right really started taking off. Should both be included? X-Editor (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think timing and sample selection can explain some of those differences, and I think both are perfectly usable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The second study also notes that "The GamerGate community as it currently stands did not begin as a site for right wing extremists to discuss politics". Since the first one took place before Trump and the alt-right took off, it's possible that the right-wing stuff wasn't there to begin with, but happened later on. I'll go ahead and add the info X-Editor (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Also I think there's a notable difference in that the first study said they drew from Twitter generally as well as Kotaku in Action, while the second was focused on the Reddit community. But yes, I also agree that time may have skewed things to the right. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

True, the studies are different in nature and conducted at different times. It seems like Gamergate might not have started out as right-wing, which is why I removed the "right-wing backlash" descriptor, but instead hijacked later on. Cheers to you too. X-Editor (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That is completely untrue. You can’t say it was “before Trump and the alt-right really took off” because that’s original research, giving a false label to the period became that’s 6 months after Trump announced candidacy.CreecregofLife (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the two studies I added both dispute that it was right-wing or alt-right to begin with and one of them saying it became right-wing later on and the other suggesting it was more left-wing in January 2016. Your explanation also doesn't justify removing perfectly reliable studies from the article. X-Editor (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the context misrepresents the data and therefore become unreliable studies. Someone else has to revert the edit, because you then lied in your edit summary claiming no reason was given for the removal. I’m not going to be sanctioned just because you chose to lie to give undue weight to studies you misrepresentedCreecregofLife (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The studies back up everything I put in the article and me saying that it was “before Trump and the alt-right really took off” was just me speculating here on the talk page. Don't confuse that for what I actually put in the article, which is the info from those studies. What I was trying to say is that no reason was given for the removal in the edit summaries. X-Editor (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A reason for removal was still given. You are making excuses when you're still giving undue weight to these studies. GamerGate used women members all the time to claim they weren't misogynist. That doesn't mean they were actually left wing. CreecregofLife (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't revert the fact that they were misogynist, I only reverted the right-wing part. Adding the study would also not be undue weight considering it is one of the only sources to actually survey Gamergate. Since most other sources label Gamergate right-wing, i've decided to compromise by keeping the right-wing descriptor in the lede, but still keeping the study's results in the article alongside another study that calls it right-wing. I also noted that the study that says it is left-wing has several limitations, so that would be due weight. X-Editor (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The Glasgow thing has been discussed before and has some pretty bad flaws. The Pickford article is an undergraduate paper that was part of a self-published ebook of papers from a particular session of a criminology class - it is not a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So, X-Editor, I didn't envision so much coming from these two sources, and I think your additions were a bit much. That said, I believe the Pickford paper, as published, even though from an undergrad class is reliable enough to be used, though again, I don't believe at such length. I'd be curious to know what the flaws are with the Glasgow paper--while it seems like an outlier, it appears to me to be in a highly reliable journal and directly on point. I can imagine places where I think it might have gone wrong, but there's a reason I am not a reviewer for the American Psychological Association. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Ferguson is a highly published and peer reviewed psychologist and Brad Glasgow is an award winning journalist and researcher. A data study which actually poses questions to hundreds of GamerGate supporters is invaluable. One of the big flaws of this wiki page is there's really nothing at all from the point of view of the GamerGate supporters, and when GamerGate supporters do have their say, as in the data study, in the hundreds, with PEW political alignment questions, it conflicts with other sources that use alt-right which this discussion establishes is a term that didn't even exist at the start of GamerGate.

The Brad Glasgow/Christopher Ferguson study has my vote for inclusion on the page as a source. It's about time. Kainedamo (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I saw a comment in an archive saying that Glasgow "has a limited data set which we know has excluded a very particular set of individuals (or they lied, which he denies)." How exactly is this the case and what is wrong with the study he published? The burden of proof is on you to explain, since you're the one saying it is wrong. X-Editor (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: The undergrad paper claims that the alt-right later hijacked Gamergate, but seems to not provide any evidence to support this claim. X-Editor (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Rather than explaining myself, I'll let Glasgow do it: [4] : This was an opt-in survey. As a result, one cannot claim scientific representation. GamerGate is an online, anonymous movement, and I do not see a feasible way to conduct a truly scientific poll. While the survey may not meet scientific standards, the sample size is clearly enough to help us better understand the people involved in GamerGate. It may not meet scientific standards, but does meet market research standards, where scientific methods are often bypassed to cut costs. - MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it's a scholarly paper published in a reliable and relevant source. I don't think that means we have to pay a lot of attention to it, but it's a fair data point to consider. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: How would we incorporate the study into the article in a way that is appropriate? X-Editor (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems at most we could say "someone did an X, but the author said it wasn't exhaustive and had limitations", not least some of his descriptions seem... naive? Of the few people who do support GamerGate on the chans, it is unlikely that many of those do not also use Twitter and/or Reddit to show support. POL was particularly significant, and 4Chan ultimately booted all mention of the organisation because of its harassment campaigns (the wealth of sources covering 4Chan and the splits to the other Chans are extensive). Meanwhile the discussion point raised by other articles/coverage is about how the movement itself was hijacked to push Alt Right and generally promote extreme Libertarian type attitudes - that doesn't require a person to subscribe to traditionally Right Wing views in order to support otherwise misogynist behaviour. The conflation of agitators like Milo with the general population of Gamergate is likely something that did happen, but the support of Milo did happen.

Separately as a comment on the Study itself; the self selection bias is going to be pretty extreme, but even still some of the commentary is odd. 89% male, 74% Hetero, 74% white, 91% non-hispanic = White, male, and heterosexual, individuals in that category were, indeed, in the majority, such majorities were not necessarily overwhelming but Although individuals fitting the constellation of Caucasian, male, heterosexual, and non-Hispanic were more common than other categories, only 303 (41.8%) of the sample identified as all of these categories, suggesting that this stereotypical association with GamerGate is true for only a minority of actual participants. reads like having your cake and eating it. Koncorde (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, meant to return to this and got distracted. I basically concur with Koncorde on this. The study is usable, but doesn't merit an entire section or anything of the like. One sentence or a quick per contra seems like the way it should be incorporated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: What should the sentence look like and where should it be incorporated? I also have no problem with you taking your time. X-Editor (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

So, one thought for me would be mentioning it in the sentence about opposition to "social justice warriors" in an introductory clause -- something like

Though one early study found that Gamergate supporters were more likely to be politically left of center[FN], Gamergate is particularly associated with opposition to the influence of so-called "social justice warriors" in the gaming industry . . . .

Happy to hear from others with concerns or better suggestions, as ever. Happy Friday Eve. Dumuzid (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Do you have any sources that back up the latter claim, because that sounds like OR. X-Editor (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

About "social justice warriors"? I took that from the current incarnation of the article. Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: That still seems like WP:SYNTH. X-Editor (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Despite the fact that it is cited to two sources? Dumuzid (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: What is the second source? X-Editor (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

HATing off-topic pro-GG commentary by a now indef blocked editor. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Christopher Ferguson and Brad Glasgow co-authored a study based on a 55-item survey to determine the attitudes and beliefs of 725 GamerGate supporters, as well as demographic data. The study found that GamerGate supporters tend to hold more liberal beliefs than the general population and that the image of GamerGate is based on stereotypes than accurate portrayal. The study expresses that caution be used in making negative attributions about GamerGate individuals. I vote for something more than a sentence, especially when half the sentence that was initially suggested is nothing to do with the study. People would be better informed with a more detailed description of the study. Kainedamo (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) If you compare this data with random samples of a white majority country, GamerGate is more diverse than a random selection of the population. 74% heterosexual, that's a lot of gay people. Do you think if you picked an equivalent number of people at random it'd less?? The data is significant, when taking into account demographic factors the figures are interesting and further can be learned from them. Maybe someone can do a follow up or try to repeat the study. It does contradict stereotypes, and has my vote for inclusion into the page. Kainedamo (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC) The Ferguson/Glasgow GamerGate data study was peer reviewed and published in the journal of Psychology of Popular Media by the American Psychological Association. They didn't write this stuff with chalk on the sidewalk, dude. The study has my vote for inclusion into the wiki page. In order to actually inform people, at some point you actually have to show what GamerGate supporters say they believe from their own pov. This page is so biased it's uninformative. Time to actually tell a fuller picture. Kainedamo (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) The study's results were inserted into the article "a survey conducted from December 2015 to January 2016 found that Gamergate supporters identified as being more politically liberal", but it also mentions afterwards that Gamergaters wanted to preserve traditional gaming culture, since there are many sources that don't agree with the liberal characterization, and emphasizing this study over all of the other academic sources would be false balance. You've also failed to consider that people can lie in anonymous online surveys. X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC) What are your qualifications exactly that you think you have authority to dismiss the study? Wtf is 'traditional gaming culture' supposed to be? Where is that defined? It's not in the study. What article are you referring to? > many sources that don't agree with the liberal characterization Many of those sources, like Leigh Alexander with her connections to The Guardian, were people GamerGate supporters were calling out for cronyism and bad ethics. Sources considered reliable by wikipedia, push absurdities like trying to link GamerGate to the perception of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial (Aja Romano, Vox). The Ferguson/Glasgow study helps to provide a fuller picture from the pov of GamerGate supporters. Your goal is to inform people, or at least should be. It's not to badger them over the head with what you believe the consensus is, on an incredibly subjective culture topic. It's very arrogant to attempt to maintain that when there's a more interesting discussion to be had, if you were willing to just bend a little. Your idea of what a consensus is is kind of twisted, tbh imho, similar for the usual editors here - it's not a real consensus, when you constantly forbid a whole other side of the story from being told. Kainedamo (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC) I mean this with all due respect, but is there something that prevents you from looking at the article? The language you are asking about has been present since time immemorial (in Wikipedia terms) and the sources are noted and hyperlinked there. Dumuzid (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) @Dumuzid: I see what you're talking about now that I've looked at the article. Sorry for being lazy. I've added the requested text. X-Editor (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) @MrOllie: Thanks for explaining. X-Editor (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC) I strenuously disagree with this addition. The "although" phrasing is straightforward WP:SYNTH that comes across as using the study to try and rebut or dispute what comes after it, and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP we should not be placing significant weight on isolated studies, especially in situations where secondary sources are available, and especially ones that contradict the available secondary sources or which have no meaningful followup or secondary coverage themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC) This has similar problems; it's cited solely to a single WP:PRIMARY source that only mentions Gamergate in passing. The article is already massive-bloated with blow-by-blow minutiae; we don't need to devote entire paragraphs to flash-in-the-pan events from 2014 with no sustained coverage. If it's a significant event in the history of the topic as a whole, there ought to be more than one primary source from 2014 mentioning it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC) @Aquillion: Is there any way the 2020 study can be mentioned in a way that is not undue or WP:SYNTH? I do agree though that the latter 2014 incident is insignificant as a whole. X-Editor (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC) @Dumuzid: Since you were involved in this discussion regarding the study. X-Editor (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Hmmm. Aquillion is certainly not wrong that there's a bit of WP:SYNTH going on with my formulation; for me, I think it falls within the normal bounds of Wikipedia's editorial remit. I was trying in fact to downplay the study a bit, as it is an outlier, but for me, its provenance means some kind of mention is WP:DUE. Happy to hear if there are other thoughts on how it can be used, or, X-Editor, we may just not have any kind of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC) My thoughts are that the Ferguson and Glasgow study is of little value as a primary source, is also UNDUE, and its implementation was SYNTHy. It's tempting to compare a primary scientific study against secondary analysis, like it's some triumph of facts over feelings, but we're talking about one primary survey source against hundreds or thousands of secondary analysis sources. General guidelines like WP:SCHOLARSHIP (as Aquillion mentioned above) and specifics like WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS point out how problematic primary sources can be, especially single primary sources. That's not to say BLP/MEDRS are at play here, but they're both concerned with getting the article right. Maybe the Ferguson and Glasgow survey is right. Or maybe some people known for deception and false fronts, coordination, astroturfing, sockpuppetry, scripted campaigns, and automated social media tools skewed the results. Who's to say? But I don't need to interpret the primary source to know that our policies and guidelines suggest we ignore it unless more studies—or, even better, a systematic review of those studies—comes along. Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC) I am fine with all of the above, but have to note a pedantic point (otherwise I wouldn't be me): while indeed, the Glasgow study results themselves are a primary source, I would consider the article he wrote about them to be, strictly speaking, a secondary source. That doesn't change the fact that it is certainly an outlier or really anything about its status as WP:DUE; as I say, just a point of terminology stuck in my craw. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC) @Aquillion: Has the Ferguson and Glasgow study been cited elsewhere? If so, then it might be DUE to include somewhere in the article. X-Editor (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC) >but we're talking about one primary survey source against hundreds or thousands of secondary analysis sources. Hunderds of thousands? No. Do you know of a singular source outside of the Ferguson/Glasgow study that even attempts to talk to talk to GamerGate supporters directly and with such a big data set? It's the actual information in the study that is beneficial to the public, not whether or not it comports with 44 Aja Romano articles or Brianna Wu marketing fluff pieces. Kainedamo (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC) I don't think you need to necessary talk to GG supporters directly to figure out their ideology. Another way is to simply analyze what they say and compare that to the main ideas of different political ideologies until you find a match. X-Editor (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC) This is a methodological complaint about sourcing, and not really something we deal with on Wikipedia. If you have sources to suggest, please do. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately, the kind of sources wikipedia considers reliable are far more likely to push connections with the controversy of the day (Aja Romano, Vox - Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial), than they are to cite a study that cautions against such sweeping conclusions. You guys already have a whole entire section about the January 6th 2021 riot on the GamerGate wiki page, but ya can't have the Ferguson/Glasgow study 'cause mainstream press is a shitshow of moral panic that won't report something that undermines their shitshow. That's what it comes across like to me. Therefore, wikipedia as it's currently used is inadequate in regards to informing people. Maybe over the years it'll change but for now the topic is at a constant dead end. Kainedamo (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Okay then! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC) How are Aja Romano articles unreliable? X-Editor (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Watch out everybody, the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard court case section of the GamerGate wiki page is on the way! Viva la "reliable sources" ! Kainedamo (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Just a reminder that this is a WP:NOTAFORUM. Cheers, and Happy Sunday everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC) And you still haven't explained why the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard source is unreliable, nor have you explained why the Aja Romano sources are unreliable. X-Editor (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC) And since a 2020 review has suggested a link between right-wing extremism and Gamergate based on an analysis of thousands of posts on r/KIA, I don't think we should only mention the results of the Ferguson/Glasgow study. X-Editor (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC) When near every meme on the Internet is framed as a "dogwhistle", there's going to be a lot false conclusions you're going to come to about a wide amount of people. I do not take moral panic narratives seriously. The biases are in that review when you look at the innocuous phrases termed as "dogwhistles". " the blatant use of dogwhistles is probably the most concrete and concerning evidence of a connection between GamerGate and RWE". Ashley Peckford wrote that in the link you cited. That's the best she's got. That's nothing. The first thing that comes up when searching this paper through google is "clown world". You can assert just about anything about the internal beliefs and attitudes of the widest amount of people that you want, but it doesn't make it true. This epistemology is a sure fire way to find the alt-right in the shadows when you're alone in your room. That's what you'd rather cite, than just citing a study talking directly to GamerGate supporters. Kainedamo (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC) I mean, what you're talking about is the fundamental way Wikipedia has chosen to organize itself. You may not like it, which is fair, and perhaps it doesn't achieve the best results (I think it's the worst solution except for all the others so far proposed). But your complaint is a bit like saying "this atlas is worthless. It just relies on maps when people could be out there surveying." Okay, I guess? Not sure what to do with that. Dumuzid (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Dogwhistles aren't the only thing the 2020 review examines. The review also examines "racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia" as indicators of right-wing extremism. One problem with the Glasgow study that I haven't mentioned is that it only looks at GG supporters on Twitter, which seems like self-selection bias, a bias that even the paper itself acknowledges as a limitation. Regardless, I did still add a brief mention of the Glasgow study to the article along with the 2020 review. X-Editor (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC) One of you got featured in Washington Post and was given a pat on the back for editing this page when all it really comes down to is copy/pasting and not digging deeper. I envision a better future version of an online, living encyclopaedia in which the editors are encouraged to be more investigative and in which the discussions are more interested in the details rather than a beurocracy of what counts as "reliable" or not, as if people are incapable of deciphering a topic without the biased filter of media. It's usually "reliable sources" or "consensus" that gets thrown at me when I suggest changes and I don't find either convincing. This topic is far too nuanced and interesting for wikipedia in its current incarnation. I will comment from time to time in the Talk page if there's something I want to say. Kainedamo (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC) What is it you don't find convincing? Consensus and reliable sources? Dumuzid (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) As in I don't think it's a consensus and I don't think the sources are reliable. It's not a consensus, it's cronyism. It's not a consensus when a whole other side of the story is not told. It's not a consensus when information is hidden that could drastically upset the narrative of the whole page (obvious ethics transgressions like the Leigh Alexander and Sunset game coverage ethics issues, Zoe Quinn scamming 85k), and the connections such unethical actors have had with the press. This page is a circle jerk. You launder bad ideas. What you do is you take spurious, unscientific bullshit like reference 172 - " the blatant use of dogwhistles is probably the most concrete and concerning evidence of a connection between GamerGate and RWE". And you pack it in with hundreds of other sources, and then you call that a consensus. I am here to point out the gaping holes and the absurdity. Maybe eventually somebody will notice and fix this mess. You're welcome. Kainedamo (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC) As I already pointed out above, you're cherrypicking the 2020 review by claiming that it only focuses on dogwhistles, when that is not the case. The problem is that no sources outside of the kickstarter itself show that Quinn supposedly scammed people and to use the Kickstarter as a reference for this claim would be original research, which goes against Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and we cannot control how the media covers certain issues. X-Editor (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Kainedamo, if this is helpful for you, I am happy to listen on my talk page, but I think we've gone plenty far here. If you have concrete suggestions for the article (starting small is always wise), then please make them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Agreed. Please talk to Dumuzid about concrete changes on his talk page, as I'm done with being involved in this discussion for now. X-Editor (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Don't accuse me of cherry-picking and then proceed to edit out my reply comment in which I go over 172 in detail. Real emperor has no clothes situation going on here. I will archive this comment so there will be a record. And Just for trying to hide that, I now exactly what my next change suggestion is going to be - the removal of 172. Kainedamo (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Does the 30/500 protection extend to talk pages? If so, all of Kainedamo's comments should be stricken. The last one removed was particularly trollish and baiting anyways. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Seems blatant WP:NOTHERE. Koncorde (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC) In the past they've been starting arguments here to screenshot and post to their Twitter, that account seems to be suspended now but it is highly likely this whole performence is intended for an audience that is literally NOT HERE. Artw (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Ah. It's that kind of situation. Literally climbing a soap box the size of the WP:REICHSTAG. Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Probably time to dust off the old discretionary sanctions. Artw (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC) I mean every word I say here. I want this place to actually be a better encyclopaedia. Kainedamo (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC) No, you want it to reflect your opinion from an incredibly narrow POV. Koncorde (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC) I want to widen the POV. Did it ever occur to you how weird it is that the wiki page on nazis is not even as negatively worded as the GamerGate page? Kainedamo (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted another version of this content. The straw poll stuff is unreliable junk. Instead of including it and then needing to spend a paragraph debunking it, it is better to just leave out the unreliable junk in the first place. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, as I said above, this is exactly the sort of source that WP:SCHOLARSHIP says we should not use - a primary study of a single poll, with no significant secondary coverage, which produced WP:EXCEPTIONAL results that contradict essentially all other available sources. The sources describing Gamergate as a right-wing movement are overwhelming and we would need similarly strong sourcing to suggest that there is disagreement on this point, not one primary study with no followup. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  That seems like a gross misreading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Certainly, when there are secondary sources available they should be preferred to primary ones, but if a topic isn't blessed with such abundance, you use the best sources you have. This isn't a topic with MEDRS standards. This article is in a peer reviewed journal from a reputable publisher and a qualified author, which are rarefied qualities compared to the newspinion that carries a lot of this material. If the study methodology has limitations, so be it. Having a methodology at all is a cut above. As for followup, there seems to be some WP:USEBYOTHERS: [5]. There's also secondary coverage of Glasgow's self-published data from Amy S. Bruckman in First Monday (journal): [6] Sennalen (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  if no reliable secondary sources cover it, we probably shouldn't use it as it is also UNDUE. is First Monday a RS? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  No one else seems poised to chime in, so I will say yes. Its web site looks low-rent but that seems to be an artefact of its hipster origin - open access Internet publishing before it was cool. Its reputation and bone fides are solid, however. Both pieces, the one from First Monday and the one from Psychology of Popular Media are valid to use. Sennalen (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended confirmed edit request

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.

---

“Gamergate has been viewed as a contributor to the alt-right and other right-wing movements.“ should be changed to something like “Gamergate has been viewed as the beginning of the alt-right and other far-right movements.”

I believe the context of the alt right in this sentence should rather be phrased as the beginning, due to the movement beginning around this time. Right wing movements is very subjective, as the far-right and other related movements (which are far right) almost exclusively used it as “fuel” for their movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screendeemer (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The alt-right was around as early as 2008, so I disagree that the alt-right started with Gamergate. X-Editor (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There were faint beginnings then, but what we generally view now at the alt-right movement did not gain serious steam until noted neo-Nazi Richard Spencer promoted the term in 2014-2015. Which coincides with the origins of gamergate. ValarianB (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, my reading of the sources is that the alt-right is generally regarded as predating Gamergate (I think this is a good recent overview), but that the latter was quickly co-opted by the former. That said, I am not opposed to an edit like the one suggested, but would want to see a number of reliable sources supporting the assertion. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It does coincide, but we have to keep in mind that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We also have to keep in mind what reliable sources have to say on the subject. X-Editor (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The causation is well-established. See the citations at Alt-right#Mainstream emergence. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB: That's true, but it still technically would not be the beginning of the alt-right, since the alt-right started in 2008. But could Gamergate be viewed as the beginning of other right-wing movements? If so, what movements? X-Editor (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ideologies don't turn on a dime, bud. You can't pin a day and say "the alt-right did not exist on Day Q" and "the alt-right did exist on Day R". All the smoldering white supremacy, involuntary celibacy, and similar tenets began to emerge from the aether when a black guy had the audacity to become president, eventually coalescing into a recognizable movement by the time of Gamergate. ValarianB (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The alt-right starting in 2008 is literally what the article on the alt-right says: "According to Hawley, the alt-right began in 2008." And I never suggested that nothing was brewing beforehand. X-Editor (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I've wondered if a lot of what became gamergate crystallised with resentment at phasing out booth babes, but unfortunately I wasn't able at the time to find sources for this. I still think it would be interesting to see if the same people were involved. More certainly, I also saw at the time Ross Douthat's 2016 tweet "the Trumpian right and the SJW left are our first real intimations of what a genuinely post-Christian politics might look like" and thought it sounded very plausible. I think to a large extent it's been borne out, except with the term "woke" emerging as a rallying point. Blythwood (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Trumpian right is still Christian, although maybe less so at first, so that's not entirely true. But the SJW left is definitely post-Christian. X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Can this section be closed? It's a FORUM magnet with plenty of personal opinions but nothing actionable based on reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I am so tempted to list some of my most WP:FORUM-y and controversial opinions, but I will choose the high road. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. X-Editor (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Post-gamergate in action?

This article might be worth a look. A female streamer gets falsely accused of cheating in a video game, mostly by the male Call of Duty Warzone community. Despite there being no proof, people are just claiming she is cheating.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k8e59/everyone-thinks-nadia-is-cheating-at-warzone-because-shes-good-at-the-game FaraHelp (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Males and females are accused of cheating on a regular basis, as in, multiple times a day. Not particularly notable, and article doesn't mention gamergate. It'd fall under WP:OR to include it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sad Puppies section

In the Sad Puppies section is this statement: "Members of the blocs said that they sought to counteract what they saw as a focus on giving awards based on the race, ethnicity, or gender of the author or characters rather than quality, ethnicity, or gender of the author or characters rather than quality, quality...".

I would like to request a single-word change that will improve the accuracy and neutrality of the above-quoted statement -- specifically, change "what they saw" to "what they asserted". Yes, the sentence begins with "Members of the block SAID that...". But the difference between true belief and self-serving assertion blurs by the time the reader gets to the end of the sentence. Wikipedia editors have no idea what the Sad Puppies actually saw or believed; all that is known is what the Sad Puppies _asserted_. And especially given that the assertion is a controversial statement, a clear distinction between belief and assertion should be maintained, and any hints of support for of the statement's truthfulness or validity should be avoided. AnneTG (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there's a doubling-up of some of the text you quote, but it's immaterial. I don't see the change as controversial, it's simply better wording. Go for it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

i'm guessing this was an edit request by someone unable to edit the article. i made two changes along this line. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

DoritosGate

I've took a look at the referencing article, and I don't agree that it qualifies as relevant to this article or ethics. The two articles it references are an opinion piece from Eurogamer and Know Your Meme, which isn't anywhere close to reliable sourcing. When bringing up ethics, this feels like a nothing burger as the marriage (if you will) of The Game Awards and advertising has been obvious since the word go. Compared to the likes of Jeff Gertsman which was a wink and a nudge, this seems much more in your face. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The article I used points out that the so-called "ethics in game journalism" widely cited by GG had earlier roots in things like DoritosGate. Another source (NY Mag) and (academic journal article) pointing out that it is tied. As it was suggested in the re-revert, there is probably at most one paragraph to explain that there was already an air of resentment of gamers towards the gaming press on the belief that the journalists were in commercial pockets (as early as 2007 with Gerstmann's firing from Gamespot). While we know that the "ethics in game journalism" was a false pretense, explaining that this was already a thing that the movement built upon is probably helpful information. Masem (t) 16:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think "movement was built upon" is probably a bit too generous of phrasing there, but I see your point. Maybe I'm thinking its placed oddly in the article? It feels a bit clunky where it is. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to move, reword, etc. I agree it is right now maybe not the best place but it should be called out as part the same area where the claims about ethics in game journalists were debunked. (> only added that here as I was working on Keighley's articles and saw that source that made that connection to GG) Masem (t) 18:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"an excessive number of citations" again

Is there anyway to stop this issue from coming up again? This entry is argued to death, the citations exists to justify everything. Just remove the header again? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. If the editor can't be bothered to justify the tag within a few hours, it's perfectly fine to remove it per WP:DRIVEBY. I agree that the citations issue has been litigated to death. There may be more citations than on other articles, but there's a lot to cite. Woodroar (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the usefulness of a lot of citations. It's a moderately old article that's seen a lot of flux. People move things around, condense, and citations just come along for the ride. No one has the appetite for house-cleaning. Sources from 2014 are particularly suspect. I agree it's not such an urgent issue that it needs a banner of shame. Sennalen (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

DePape and GG from WaPo

Right wing politician making connections to left and DePape. Debunking with GG.

The turning point appears to have been in 2014 with GamerGate, which The Post described as “the vicious campaign of online abuse against female video game developers and critics, a precursor to the rise of coordinated right-wing or bias-fueled troll attacks.”

Legacy section? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

From SFist: “How did I get into all this,” DePape said in one online forum inn a quote obtained by the Times. “Gamer Gate it was gamer gate.” He referred to Gamergate as a “consumer led revolt against communism,” and equated women in gaming with “wokism.” https://sfist.com/2022/11/21/prosecutors-finding-alleged-pelosi-attacker-depape-was-a-big-gamergate-guy/ - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Pushback?

This article seems to be entirely written, edited, and maintained to assume a certain stance and has little to no pushback against it, especially from reputable sources such as Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/?sh=2331ed574cd5

There is some serious problems with this article that needs to be addressed, which seems to be completely ignored within the talk page.Belregard (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Forbes.com hosts a large self-publishing platform. Writers tagged 'Forbes Contributors' or 'Senior Forbes Contributors' are not actually writing for Forbes proper. See WP:FORBESCON. We cannot use medium blogs either. You seem to be asking for a WP:FALSEBALANCE - Wikipedia reflects the attitude of the best available sources, it does not contain unreliable 'pushback'. MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

GamerGate was never a consumer movement, and perpetuating the "Brianna Wu stole people's money" nonsense is not going to work. The people who have been editing this article are well versed in the facts, and are not likely to be persuaded by talking points straight out of r/kotakuinaction. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. You claim to not allow blogs, yet one of the primary sources on this page is a blogpost, namely Here:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance

And also here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/12/31/janay-rice-anita-sarkeesian-and-jackie-three-women-who-made-us-get-mad-in-2014/

I should argue, that if these blogposts are certainly viable, then surely mine are too?

"and perpetuating the "Brianna Wu stole people's money" nonsense is not going to work"

Really? Because looking at her receipts, her fund-raising money that she took seems awfully suspicious looking, almost like a slushfund:

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00633669/

Are we really going to mince words here and pretend you are a neutral arbiter? I can see quite easily through the way you talk and you have zero impartiality in your demeanor.Belregard (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

For clarity's sake: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". MrOllie was pointing out that unless the author of the blog is an expert in this field, they would also not qualify. If you want to debate the cites you pulled out, we can do that, but the ones you suggested do not appear to satisfy WP:RS.

Your opinions on her finances are definitely not reliable sources though, so that's not going to fly. Not a great look to claim I'm not a neutral arbiter while clearly showing your own bias.

Oh and for the record, Wikipedia editors do not need to be impartial themselves. We need to strive to find the best reliable sources for an article & report them in an unbiased manner, but I am not required to pretend I am persuaded by GamerGate's claims to be "concerned about ethics in gaming journalism." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the editor or the one running the article, so there is no bias on my part, especially not when asking for more fair and balanced discussion on a subject controlled entirely by ideologues.

"MrOllie was pointing out that unless the author of the blog is an expert in this field, they would also not qualify. " - And neither of the people who wrote the Washington Post article or the Guardian article are experts in said field as Jon Stone is referred to as a "Poet" on his Guardian page, and Joann Weiner is an expert in "Economics", so again, I ask, why are they allowed and mine are not? In fact, the article I directly linked to by the Guardian was patently false, as various writers at several gaming websites had been donating through Patreon to said game developers, which Patreon realized lead to conflicts of interest and was the spurring moment that they changed their donation disclosure policy to be mandatory. If you are willing to acknowledge those sources are unjust, and remove them and their references within the article, then perhaps my opinion may change.Belregard (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that the Washington Post and the Guardian exercise editorial control over those posts (WP:NEWSBLOG), so they are more akin to something published on the regular opinion page than a self-published blog: Usable with proper attribution, as this article already does. Forbes's self publishing wing and Medium.com have zero editorial control. MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia dictates that The Guardian blogpost articles are determined on a case-by-case basis and seeing as Jon Stone has zero qualifications or expertise to be talking on the subject matter, at the very least I should see it as perfectly viable to remove his article, as a source.Belregard (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Stone's interests in video games and 'ludokinetic' literature strikes me as an apt background. Some of his qualifications may be seen here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

a subject controlled entirely by ideologues

This betrays your there is no bias on my part statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

He has an MA in Creative Writing, not Journalism, Psychology, Mass Media, or even Political Science. His "qualifications" are lacking and have no backing. I also don't think you know what he means by "ludokinetic narrative" since it has nothing to do with social events such as Gamergate. "This betrays your there is no bias on my part statement." - Mmm, I'm sure you think so.Belregard (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I will note his PhD was in "poem-game interplay." One need not have a PhD in gamergate in order to be a reliable commentator on gamergate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I should note that it is assumed everyone here is talking in "good faith", so your willful ignorance of my blatant statement that he has zero education in any of the fields which would lend him credence is a sign of bad faith arguing. Cheers.Belregard (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

So his PhD doesn't count toward his education? Dumuzid (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Last I checked, having a PhD in poetry is not a PhD in Journalism, Political Science, Communication, Psychology, Mass Media, or any field in which talking about the psyche of various individuals and the reporting on social phenomenon would be required. So no, it doesn't.Belregard (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. I would disagree, but if consensus agrees with you, then so be it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

According to his researchgate profile, the PhD is in Game studies / creative writing. And he's published both in book and peer-reviewed article form on games. He's an expert - but this is a complete sideshow, because the 'expert' stuff really only applies to self-published blogs, and we're not citing his selfpub blog but a post on a major newsblog. Though given his credentials we probably should cite his selfpublished stuff as well. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"The PhD is in game studies / Creative Writing" - It's actually in poem-game interplay. It is still irrelevant to the discussion, as Gamergate has nothing to do with either game design or poetry. "And he's published both in book and peer-reviewed article form on games" - His books are "No, Robot, No!", "Battalion", and "Bad Kid Catullus", none of which pertain to the topic at hand. "Battalion" is a book about bats, "No, Robot, No!" is about robots and cyborgs in art and cinema, and "Bad Kid Catullus" is about an ancient Roman poet. As far as "peer reviewed articles", they were also all about poetry and game design. None of this points to him being a reputable source to be referencing from a blogpost section on an other-wise accepted source.Belregard (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to all involved, I don't think this is worth pursuing. Belregard, if you can achieve consensus for your view, then feel free to remove that source. Otherwise, I think we're at an impasse. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a reason this article has neither been featured, or listed as a "good article". I think by cleaning up some of the less reputable sources, it could change that, and we could start by removing that source.Belregard (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's generally not acceptable to change posts that have so many replies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just so it's not lost the original comment on this thread contain comment from Geth N7 published on Medium, buy it was removed by Bilby. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Belregard that the Guardian article written by Jon Stone should not be included. It is an opinion piece with little to no news or evidence presented on the matter, it’s just Stone giving his personal opinion on the event. Also, that article was written right as Gamergate was a happening hot topic issue, going on and on about why he doesn’t personally like it, ending with “That’s the real reason why they want to spin this as an apolitical consumer movement, rather than a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment. And there is no neutral stance to take on that – we are either with them or against them.”

Also, like it has been pointed out, he is in no way an “expert” on this issue. Simply stating that he has a PhD is a ridiculous justification to call him an expert. The article doesn’t even make any real verifiable claims either. Digital Herodotus (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Digital Herodotus, following an editor you are in a conflict with to an unrelated page to oppose them is a really, really bad idea. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, my argument is that he has PhD involving video games -- not just any PhD. Obviously Belregard (and apparently you) disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid well the issue with that is that all sides from the gamergate issue are obviously involved in the video game world in some sort of way, from simply players to reviewers to game makers. I don’t see why this particular guy should be seen as an “expert” on the issue just based on that. Digital Herodotus (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I would not say he is an "expert" on gamergate, but as it was occurring, no one was. By my lights, he was expert enough in the realm of video games that his writing is notable and reliable for the article. Others' mileage may vary! Dumuzid (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying he was an expert on Gamergate, we are saying he does not have the suitable credentials to be a primary source, directly quoted on the topic, seeing as he knew none of the individuals, none of his education is dealing the actual social/psychological/journalistic aspects involved in covering such a topic, nor does he have the integral work experience dealing with this aspect of the culture at large. What you are essentially equivocating is that because he has a PhD, and because it is somehow involved with video games (when it actually isn't, a degree in the medium of video games would be more akin to Game Studies, Computational Media, or even just Computer Science). Belregard (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you've made it very clear you disagree with my conclusion. That's fine; when you have a consensus, make any changes you like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I would, but the article is locked. I do not have the required extended confirmed user access level. Belregard (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You also obviously don't have consensus backing. MrOllie (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is being used to support "Jon Stone, in The Guardian, called it a "swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment" and compared it to the men's rights movement.", for which it is a completely acceptable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The contentious labels in the article are all supported by reliable published sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"The contentious labels in the article are all supported by reliable published sources" - Not the one I have a problem with, which is why I am discussing it here. "Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article." - I think the way it is written, and the person it is written by, says that it is equivalent to a blogpost and should be discarded...Of course, on top of the fact that it is in The Guardian's blogposts section. Belregard (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:RSP does not say that it should be discarded. It links to WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:RSOPINION, which both say to 'attribute the opinions in the text to the author'. And that is what is done in this Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. The Guardian's Blogposts section has a "No Consensus" warning, which states "The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered." - And that is precisely what we are doing here. Belregard (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered. The opinion is attributed as it should be. At any rate, the consensus of this discussion is clear - the citation should be retained. MrOllie (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's being used to support a quoted statement not a contentious label in wikivoice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of RFC tag

@Belregard:, I noticed you just removed the RFC tag, but then continued arguing. You need to either allow the process to run to completion, or you need to accept that consensus is against you. When you embark on dispute resolution, the idea is to settle the dispute one way or the other. I am returning the RFC tag for the time being. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"or you need to accept that consensus is against you" - I already did that, if you cared to actually read my post. "While his contributions on The Guardian have been deemed fit to stay because it fits within the recommended criteria for Newsblogs and has been cited academically" - My arguing about the other quote is not in relation to The Guardian article. Glad I could clear your misunderstanding up. Belregard (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

With regard to your edit comment any attempts to reinstate it will be undone, that would be a bad idea, as it would constitute edit warring. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, while the edit summary strikes me as a little needlessly strident, it is my understanding that an editor may indeed withdraw their own RFC if they wish--though I will certainly defer to the wiser among us! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup, they may. Just wanted to remind them that edit-warring to take it back out would be a bad idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, they may. But withdrawing an RFC and then continuing to argue about Jon Stone is the kind of thing that would probably be actionable under Wikipedia:Contentious topics. - MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In this case, it's a bit of a toss-up. Yes, they should not have been arguing a separate issue inside the RfC about a different issue. But the argument was in the comment where they agreed to withdraw the RfC, so it's probably not worth pursuing any action over. The RfC is closed, they can open a new section if there's something else they want to debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If you deem it as actionable, then file a formal request. Seeing as the topic is closed and consensus was achieved, I have nothing further to add, so I don't know what good it will do you. Belregard (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms article at Mother Jones

I already posted this over at talk:Kiwi Farms, but there is an interesting tangent on that forum's relationship to Gamergate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions

another one of those threads Dronebogus (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been a little while since I last posted. It's as one-sided as ever, but that's in accordance with the policies here, so there's no way to fix it without overhauling policy. I notice many others have made that complaint, because they expect an encyclopedia article to present both sides of a controversy in a spirit of fairness, and WP not only fails to do this, but refuses to do so by design. So, instead of shouting at a brick wall, I thought I'd take a different approach. First, I'd like to rename the "Purpose and Goals" section to something like, "Responses to Gamergate Views" as a more accurate representation of the content there. The first paragraph offers a fairly accurate, if brief, summary of the views of Gamergate, then the whole rest of it argues against these points and denounces them in several more paragraphs. This doesn't really cover the "purpose and goals" of Gamergate in a way its proponents would agree with, it's more of a refutation which briefly states what it's arguing against. Thus, the title should reflect this. Second, I think there's a possible compromise: not by splitting the article into pro and anti sections, which is not allowed. Rather, we could cover *the claims of Gamergate*, that is, the arguments put forth by its supporters, without endorsing any of this in the encyclopedic voice. This would expand coverage, and provide an outlet for those who feel there is a lack of representation in this article. In the earlier discussion, I posted a few sources after a brief search, which are: [7] [8] [9] [10] Admittedly, these sources vary in reliability, and the archived link is blog-like, but this is at least a starting point. Again, I don't want to claim that GG's points are true, rather, I want to document their claims. I think that would be a far more viable approach, one which would not have the same difficulties in sourcing. We'd want to cover the alleged sex scandal, and particularly the "gamers are dead" articles which escalated this whole situation by 1. antagonizing fans, and 2. convincing GGers that there was backdoor collusion in the industry, since many different sources ran the same sort of rant article around the same time. We could present all this as a false narrative, just as long as their claims and version of events are documented accurately. At the very least, this could be a path forward for other editors to follow, instead of circular debates. Questions/comments welcome. Xcalibur (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC) So, instead of shouting at a brick wall I mean, you spent an entire paragraph doing that, but okay. First, I'd like to rename the "Purpose and Goals" section to something like, "Responses to Gamergate Views" as a more accurate representation of the content there. I'm amenable to renaming this section, but we already have a Responses section further down the page. I'd suggest "Characteristics" as a more general title that covers the material we present: the typical actions & motives of Gamergate supporters, plus the sources that rebut GG arguments. Second, I think there's a possible compromise This suggestion seems like a non-starter, as we're already discussing the claims & motives of GG in the "Purposes & Goals" section. If you want to expand that section, we can discuss that, but I don't see the need for a new one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC) I mean, you spent an entire paragraph doing that, but okay. No, it was a brief introduction covering the ongoing dispute at this article, which I'd like to resolve. I'm amenable to renaming this section, but we already have a Responses section further down the page. I'd suggest "Characteristics" as a more general title that covers the material we present: the typical actions & motives of Gamergate supporters, plus the sources that rebut GG arguments. Yes, there's a "gaming industry response", but this is distinct. Maybe I could tweak the wording? This suggestion seems like a non-starter, as we're already discussing the claims & motives of GG in the "Purposes & Goals" section. If you want to expand that section, we can discuss that, but I don't see the need for a new one. The point is that the "purposes and goals" section isn't actually about their claims & motives, it's about briefly covering them in a single paragraph in order to spend the entire rest of the section arguing against them. That's not an informative way of documenting what the movement claimed to be. This article doesn't document the GG version of reality, which is useful for understanding the movement; eg I don't see much about the "gamers are dead" articles, or GameJournoPros mailing list, both of which are important points in GG's timeline. Instead of trying to overhaul the section, it's better to leave it as is (a refutation that briefly states what it's arguing against), and create a new section for GG's claims, no matter how fictional they might be. My abc source documents pro & anti, since almost the entire WP article is anti, I'll quote the pro- summary: The gaming media - including mainstream and niche outlets, and bloggers - no longer represents the interests of gamers. Many games journalists have become too close to the developers, especially the indie developers, that they write about. This chumminess has compromised their objectivity and led to them giving biased coverage of their games. Furthermore, the games media has been infiltrated by activists who have an ideological agenda to disenfranchise gamers from their beloved hobby, and who want to change gaming irrevocably to align it with the values of feminism and the radical left. These values are not those held by most gamers, and this political intrusion is unwelcome in gaming circles. When these issues of corruption and activism were brought to light, instead of acknowledging them and dealing with them sensibly, the gaming media rallied around its own and denied or covered up any wrongdoing. The gaming media also lashed out at its core constituents and overtly attacked gamers by attempting to undermine the very notion of "gamer." And amongst all this, opponents to GamerGate were hurling around accusations that anyone who cared about corruption in games journalism was an angry neckbearded misogynist. GamerGate is not misogynist, but it is against anyone using confected victimhood to gain an unfair advantage, whether that individual is a women or anyone else. While some extremists have used the GamerGate banner to issue attacks, including death threats, against the perceived opposition, including some women developers or activists, these extremists don't truly represent GamerGate. I think the GG crowd would largely endorse this, and it (with additional points) could be the basis of a new section. The key point is that I'm not saying this is true, or that it's an alternate possibility, it's documenting GG's side of the story. You can denounce it as false, I just think it should be covered to be informative and avoid the whole issue of WP:RGW, which infects this article. Xcalibur (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC) That's not an informative way of documenting what the movement claimed to be. What the movement claimed to be is already summed up though, we don't need to go into more depth because... there's no more depth to it. They claimed that journalists were giving favorable reviews to certain game devs/companies, and that was bunk. I feel your proposal puts way too much undue weight on Gamergate's side of things. I especially take umbrage with the quoted these extremists don't truly represent GamerGate line. GG was entirely the extremist side. Anyone innocently swept up in it was a minority who got duped. I think the GG crowd would largely endorse this Frankly, we don't need their endorsement, any more than the September 11th attacks article needs the endorsement of the conspiracy theorists who think the government did it with invisible missiles & holograms. The fringe positions do not need to agree with the article, we just need to represent the facts as presented in reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC) What the movement claimed to be is already summed up though, we don't need to go into more depth because... there's no more depth to it. There's definitely more: aside from alleged biased/favoritist reviews, there was the gamers are dead articles, the sex scandal, gamejournopros mailing list, disrespectful nodding aka contacting advertisers, and the opposition to leftist/progressive activism. As it is, some of it is barely covered. UNDUE I don't think it would qualify as UNDUE to have a single section describing their version of events, not when the whole rest of the article is staunchly against this. A key difference is that it would be presented as fiction, unlike the rest of the article, which is presented as factual. I especially take umbrage with the quoted ... GG was entirely the extremist side. They themselves don't claim to be extremists, and they distance themselves from the worst behavior committed, often claiming that it's a false flag. This is about their claims, not what's true. The fringe positions do not need to agree with the article, we just need to represent the facts as presented in reliable sources. Yet we do have articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories and Modern flat Earth beliefs. Naturally, these are presented as wrong and false, but absurd claims can still be notable in their own right. Likewise, the claims, narrative, and version of events presented by GG is relevant to this topic, no matter how absurd and false it may be. If you'd like, we can title the section "misinformation and pernicious lies of gamergate" or similar, and we can put an intro & conclusion warning the reader that this information is full of falsehood, just as long as it's presented coherently. Instead of trying to give two sides, or an alternate version, we'd be explicitly denouncing it as false, and simply documenting falsehoods. Most of the article would factually describe GG in terms of most RS, then there could be a section documenting the fictions/falsehoods from the other side. I think this could be the solution to the circular debates here. Xcalibur (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Some of it is barely covered because the reliable sources barely cover it. Per WP:DUE, that's how it should be. You're arguing for WP:FALSEBALANCE here - we don't have to (and should not) portray both sides of the argument - we report only what the best reliable sources report. MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC) It's not both sides, it's explicitly documenting the GG side of things as false. I haven't conducted a proper review, but I expect that the RS should give far more coverage to lies & misinformation of Gamergate, as opposed to sources treating their side as a viable alternative. Xcalibur (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Yes, the GG side was false, which is what virtually all reliable sources say. From its inception, Gamergate was a coordinated harassment campaign. It was planned on 4chan, 8chan, IRC, KIA, etc.—right out in the open. Journalists aren't stupid, they were able to see it happening like anyone else. As soon as sources started covering the harassment, the astroturfed deception and PR ops began: "ethics in games journalism", The Fine Young Capitalists, #NotYourShield, etc. Also planned right out in the open. And when sources covered the misogyny, the almost exclusive focus on Zoë Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, guess what happened? The switch to calling them "Literally Who" was planned in public, too. You can't make this stuff up. You're asking us to represent Gamergate's side as if it were ever made in good faith. That's like suggesting we represent a Ponzi schemer's side as legitimate investment advice despite the mountains of reliable sources that say otherwise. We can't and we won't do that. Woodroar (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC) This is about their claims, not what's true. And this is precisely why it's UNDUE. Per WP:FRINGE we don't give equal representation to a fringe minority, and the folks who think GamerGate was an innocent movement are absolutely the fringe. We don't give GG's viewpoints equal time, because it just promotes the idea they had any validity to start with. As Woodroar points out, we have the article built the way it is so that people are clear about the facts: GG was never about "ethics in gaming journalism." As far as I can tell, all your suggested points are actually covered in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC) (plz excuse the delay) First, I think collapsing this discussion was a bit premature! Anyway, I thought I made myself clear. I'm not saying we should cover GG's side as if it were true, I'm saying we can cover it as false (because all the RS reject it). This is similar to articles which document conspiracy theories, or a ponzi scheme's pitch (to use your example) while also clearly stating its false. My whole point is that presenting false claims as false, yet in more detail, might be a way forward. I don't think this would be FALSEBALANCE/UNDUE if we're following the RS and presenting it as disinformation (the section title can call it disinformation if you like). Xcalibur (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC) I'm not seeing any reason to explain the false claims in more detail. I oppose changing the section title to "Refutation of stated purpose and goals", as most of the section is dedicated to description of the campaign's characteristics. I would be fine with the status quo ante, or HTF's suggestion of "Characteristics". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Another idea

you literally just commented on this directly above. WP:BLUDGEONING with a velvet hammer is still bludgeoning. Dronebogus (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I still think "explaining the false claims in more detail" could be a path forward for this article, and a means of resolving its issues. However, it seems consensus leans against that for the time being. I also still believe the "Purpose and Goals" section is more of a refutation than anything else, since it only describes GG *on its own terms* in the first paragraph. I wanted the title to reflect that, but it's ultimately not that significant. Anyway (now that I've tied up loose ends from the previous discussion), I have one more idea to offer. For context, GG began with an alleged sex scandal, which then escalated. The first banner they rallied around was "ethics in game journalism". While this is relevant, and they did focus on a handful of specific individuals, I think GG was in a larger sense a backlash against identity politics, progressive themes, and far-left activism in video games. While the former issues get more attention, and are thus the focus of this article, the latter was more significant to the purposes of this movement. I believe opposition to leftist politicization of the hobby is what really gave this legs, taking it well beyond the initial scandal & ethics complaints into a larger cultural battle, which never quite ended but merged into the ongoing culture war. In fact, sometimes I'm not sure whether to use past or present tense for GG, since while it peaked around 2014-17, there was no definite conclusion. So my current suggestion is to give fuller coverage to the anti Social Justice aspect of GG, and how it merged into the culture war. These themes are addressed somewhat, but I think they could be made more detailed and definite. Xcalibur (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC) the "Purpose and Goals" section is more of a refutation than anything else, since it only describes GG *on its own terms* in the first paragraph. This is giving Gamergaters' claims WP:DUE weight. Reliable secondary sources near-uniformly reject these claims as false or baseless. give fuller coverage to the anti Social Justice aspect of GG, and how it merged into the culture war. These themes are addressed somewhat, but I think they could be made more detailed and definite. It's been discussed that Gamergate's "anti Social Justice aspect" (as you termed it) had no substantive intellectual content. To describe Gamergate as having such content would be giving undue weight to Gamergaters' opinions. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Due Weight this is debatable, but I've said my piece already. I just wanted to wrap up the previous discussion. intellectual content The sources I linked earlier indicate that GG is not necessarily right-wing, that their political views vary, but they are united in their opposition to progressive themes & activism, especially where it influences content in their hobby. An excerpt from that abc summary I posted: Furthermore, the games media has been infiltrated by activists who have an ideological agenda to disenfranchise gamers from their beloved hobby, and who want to change gaming irrevocably to align it with the values of feminism and the radical left. These values are not those held by most gamers, and this political intrusion is unwelcome in gaming circles. This seems like a form of purism & gatekeeping of the hobby against perceived ideological subversion. I think there's something to this, but I'd have to dig further. In the meantime, this is just meant as a sort of guide marker to how the article could develop in the future. Xcalibur (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Yes, keep digging and you'll discover the issue. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of reliable sources describe Gamergate as right-wing, disorganized, and misogynistic. The sources in this article are just the tip of the iceberg. Attempts to describe Gamergate as not necessarily right-wing or united in any way are a non-starter because reliable sources don't say that—at least not in the significant numbers that you'd need to counter the mainstream POV. Similarly, attempts to characterize women making and commenting on video games as activism or intrusion is ridiculous. Woodroar (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC) GG is not necessarily right-wing This has been discussed before, and reliable secondary sources widely describe Gamergate as right-wing. To use the sources you linked in the previous discussion to say that GG isn't necessarily right-wing would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a tiny minority position. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Citation of Jon Stone's The Guardian blogposts article

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

---

Does Jon Stone's article from The Guardian meet the recommended criteria for citation on this Wikipedia Article? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance Belregard (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. WP:RSP recommends that Guardian blogs be treated as WP:NEWSBLOGS and/or WP:RSOPINION - which means we use them with attribution. That's what the article does. In addition. Jon Stone has relevant credentials (Ph.D in Game Studies/Creative Writing), has published elsewhere on games, and is quoted by other reliable sources on this subject (Washington Post, The Week). This specific article was even cited in a book from a reputable academic publisher. - MrOllie (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per MrOllie and general consensus in discussion above; also worth considering whether Sangdeboeuf's recent edit moots this RFC. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Requested comments are generally meant to be from "outside input". Neither you, nor MrOllie, are "outside input". Belregard (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's pretty common to deal with things this way, and you are welcome to vote as opener, but as you wish. Dumuzid (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) RfCs are a way to centralize discussion, not a way to get around existing discussions. All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  No in that case. The WP:RSP states that Guardian Blogs have no consensus and can be disputed. The figure in question, Jon Stone, does not have the credentials to be backed up. Nor does his being cited in a book from some publisher validate him (when said book also included twitter posts). He has a masters in Creative Writing and thus lacks expertise required for the topic, and there is no news or evidence presented in his piece. Quotes such as this: "[Gamergate] readjusts and reinvents itself in response to attempts to disarm and disperse its noxiousness, subsuming disaffected voices in an act of continual regeneration, cycling through targets, pretexts, manifestoes, and moralisms" adds nothing to the article but ad hominem (Which, I might add, is not even cited properly as citation 122 leads directly to a Ryan Cooper article). In a secondary quote, "Jon Stone, writing in The Guardian, called it a "swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment" - This constitutes more of a blurb seems both irrelevant and generalizing. These two quotes together make up the summation of content added to the article from Jon Stone and seem wholly unnecessary and inadequate.

  Belregard (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Ryan Cooper article is directly quoting Stone. Both these quotes are supported by independent sources, and WP:USEBYOTHERS is a key measure of reliability itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for correcting me with that source. It's even more evidence it should be removed since that quote is taken directly from his Tumblr, not his actual quote from the article. https://jonstonechannel2.tumblr.com/post/99246356388/why-bother-with-gamergate Belregard (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  You're right -- that quote was incorrectly cited. I have corrected it to "The Week" from "The Guardian." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  But did you remove the quote itself? WP:UGC states that "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. -- Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Facebook, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, ODMP, Reddit, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, and Wikipedia (self referencing)." - If you are going to quote from Ryan Cooper's article, it should be a quote from Ryan Cooper, not a source from a user generated website. Belregard (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Week is not a "largely user-generated" site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, but the quote from Jon Stone in that article is taken from his Tumblr, which is user generated content, and unacceptable. If you want to keep that link and quote Ryan Cooper, that is fine, but using him as a middle-man to quote from a UGC site is not. Belregard (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  WP:UGC is a subsection of WP:RS/SPS, which reads Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That is exactly the case here. Also, reliable sources are allowed to quote whoever they want, and then we can cite that. Using a 'middle-man to quote from' is not only allowed it is encouraged. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, but the self-published contents of Jon Stone, as we have made abundantly clear, is not an expert. While his contributions on The Guardian have been deemed fit to stay because it fits within the recommended criteria for Newsblogs and has been cited academically, it has not been stated through consensus that he is an expert on the subject matter. Belregard (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion regarding his expertise, but it doesn't matter here -- as both MrOllie and HandThatFeedsYou have said, the quote is from a reliable source. That means it is reliable. It doesn't matter that it originates elsewhere. By being included in The Week, it becomes part of that source. With all due respect, this argument is a non-starter. Dumuzid (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  As Mr. Ollie said, that's a basic misunderstanding of WP:RS. We are not citing the Tumblr post, we are citing The Week which chose to quote his Tumblr post as part of their article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  You may be thinking of third opinion. RfCs, while they encourage outside opinion, do not prevent involved individuals from commenting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close. This RfC is vaguely worded to the point of uselessness. Reliability of a given source depends on the context in which it is used. The source may reliable for some statements but not for others, or may just need attribution in certain cases. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak yes: I'm in most cases opposed to the use of opinion sources in articles, though I often find myself in the minority in that view and I try not to force it. This one is properly attributed, so WP:RSOPINION is met appropriately. The issue is: for a topic about which hundreds of opinion pieces have been published, how can we neutrally decide which to feature? This one at least has some claim to weight, as it's cited in the academically published book Online Harassment (currently citation 60 in the article) on pages 188 and 190. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

.Yes as I stated in the preceding discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close. I do not think the proposal was made in good faith judging by the proposer's previous discussion on this article. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak yes: I agree that this RfC is improperly asked. Of course this article can be cited in some circumstances and not in others. The question is overbroad and not likely asked in good faith. TheSavageNorwegian 17:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Gamergate is getting a show

Should this be mentioned somewhere, maybe in the legacy section? It'll star Wu and her journey through the campaign.

https://deadline.com/2022/03/norman-lear-brent-miller-executive-produce-mind-riots-gamergate-series-1234973225/ Budrtinki (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh great, when that show comes out it's going to drag all the GG chuds in here to rant about the article... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Preemptive talk page and article locks? Dronebogus (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This was announced back in 2021 sometime, and is still in development. No need to worry about it until it gets closer to airing. MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Article's already pretty locked, wonder what even more would be added to stem the tide. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed lock the talk page? Dronebogus (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you'd find any admins who would pre-emptively ECP this talk page in the anticipation that this series actually gets released. Something to be wary of perhaps, keep an eye out for whether or not it actually gets a scheduled release date, but there's nothing really we can do about it now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, no inclusion until it actually comes out, adding anything about it would amount to WP:CRYSTALBALL, imo. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

insurgency/asymmetrical conflict

bludgeoning irrelevant personal opinions, incessantly at this point Dronebogus (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

To recap: first of all, there was no need to close those discussions before letting them play out. Neither was FALSEBALANCE, the first was an attempt to circumvent that and defuse the perennial debates on here by "describing the false claims in more detail". The second was not the same thing (despite the comment), it was a suggestion to expand coverage of their political views, which overlaps but is distinct from the first. In any case, consensus was against those suggestions, and I abide by that. Also, my second suggestion is actually covered well enough under the "Legacy" section, which I had glossed over at the time. Anyway, my current thoughts on this article: it gives a pretty thorough summary on what the RS have to say. But as I said, the RS reflect an industry/institutional response to an insurgency. We can't do "both sides", but I think we can delve into the power dynamics of GG as an asymmetrical conflict. Certainly I'm not excusing any bad faith/harassment here, but the fact is that the perpetrators were relatively powerless and lacked published platforms, while the targets had power & influence. As an example, take the term "targeted harassment". Cancel culture is never called targeted harassment, even though it often is, eg JK Rowling receiving threats/harassment/stalking just for publicly disagreeing with trans. It seems that, while "harassment" is used for bad faith actions, it's only in a context of power imbalance -- the harassers must have less influence, less of a public platform than their targets. Of course, this would be OR, unless the RS develop this point; I'd have to re-read, but the sources I posted earlier may be a useful starting-point. There are also other details about GG's history which could be worth mentioning, as I said in my earlier comments. But for now, the asymmetrical & insurgent nature of GG is something to consider. Xcalibur (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) With all due respect, your omphaloskepsis with regard to this article does not seem to be persuading anyone. If you have concrete edits to suggest, by all means, do so--but this higher level appeal is not likely to lead anywhere productive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC) that's a new word, thanks. I'm just trying to contribute. I'm aware that consensus is against my other ideas, and it also seems to regard more detail about its history as UNDUE, correct me if I'm wrong. As I said, Gamers Are Dead articles, GameJournoPros, #NotYourShield, contacting advertisers etc are all relevant IMO, but it's up to consensus whether to pursue that, which doesn't seem to be on board. That's why I went in a different direction here. I could try editing the article in accordance with this, but I wanted to develop it first. Xcalibur (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Let me try to make my point more plainly: this is a large, unwieldy article with many dedicated watchers. Suggesting a new philosophical perspective or weltanschauung (apparently I get sesquipedelian when tired) is not the way to go forward. The only way you are ever going to change the article is incrementally, a bit at a time. It may not be satisfying, but I fear that is the only chance you have. I would suggest making very concrete proposals and seeing how far you can get. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Ok, that makes sense. I was thinking this article is a bit unwieldy, as you said -- not way too long, but a bit clunky and lacking in brevity. I was going to mention aiming for conciseness, but I wanted to suggest one thing at a time. Also, trying to tighten up the wording while also expanding coverage is twice the challenge. It's also true that grandiose ideas for overhauling the article are unrealistic, given the baggage and inertia. So, given your critique of my brainstorming (which I'd prefer to navel-gazing), I went ahead with a BOLD new edit, adding a paragraph under Organization, which is tangential to my initial proposal. Xcalibur (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Sorry, but I had to remove your addition. The article concerned, "The Ungovernability of Digital Hate Culture" by Bharath Ganeesh (2018) is a very interesting discussion of digital hate culture, but it only has a single passing reference to GamerGate, (well, one mention and a footnote). The description of GamerGate you added is not, in the article, a description of GamerGate but one of digital hate culture in general, so I don't feel that it can be used to be specificially about GamerGate itself. - Bilby (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) A fair criticism. However, the connection is made, and much of what it says about "digital hate culture" would surely apply to GG, wouldn't it? I didn't think the regulars here would object to that, which is why I took a liberty in editing. But if you insist on this, I can do another dig for RS. Xcalibur (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Number of citations in lede

Are the sheer number of citations for some of the sentences in the lede really necessary? I'm thinking it would be better to merge some of these citations together, and include excerpts from the references for each citation. :3 F4U (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The better question is, having such an abundance of citations, why the article text does not hew to them much. Checking the references on the first two sentences, Gamergate is described as a movement that engaged in a harrassment campaign. The article collapses the distinction, as if the article on Al Qaeda said Al Qaeda was a terrorist attack on the twin towers. The article uses distancing language to say "proponents" consider it a movement, but it looks like our sources consider it a movement too. Sennalen (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What kind of movement? Certainly not about "ethics in journalism". And what do later sources say? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's pull up source #1 that's cited to define GG, Mortensen and Sihvonen "Negative Emotions Set in Motion: The Continued Relevance of #GamerGate" (2020):

#GamerGate was a far-reaching and significant online movement even in contexts that are seemingly disengaged from video games or gaming cultures. In our opinion, it represents a particularly effective way of building online campaigns: that of relying on emotional significations and affective resonances.

...

First, the focus has been on the problem with benefits for positive reviews in game journalism, echoing the discussion on the (un)ethical behavior of game journalists accepting perquisites from game industry representatives (Nieborg and Sihvonen 2009). Second, the concerns raised by the Zoë post have given an excuse for some people to express their dislike of women game designers and female gamers in general, thus associating these concerns to the preservation of a particularly male�dominated hobby culture and history. Despite the popular saying “actually, [#GG] was about ethics in game journalism,” according to this as well as earlier research (e.g., Burgess and Matamoros-Fernández 2016; Ging and Siapera 2018), the more wide-ranging and long-term effects of the campaign have been misogynistic and anti-feminist in nature. #GG consisted of the two intermingled branches that both used the same hashtag – a wordplay on the Watergate scandal – since August 2014. However, since the majority of participants are anonymous and only loosely connected, it is difficult to know whether these are two separate campaigns or if the same people participate in both activities.

...

At the same time, thousands of gamers felt that they could finally speak about the things that were important to them and share their anger and frustration out loud. There is no reason to deny that a large group of the participants in the discussions online were genuinely concerned. For decades, the public discussions around games had been largely negative. When games are in the public eye, the discourse tends to be followed with expressions of concern to the point that media and game scholars speak of a media panic (Drotner 2009; Ferguson 2008, 2010; Karlsen 2013). This one-sided coverage of a pastime that millions of people around the world embraced with enthusiasm made the claims of a conspiracy (Chess and Shaw 2015) seem more credible, causing quite genuine concern in many of those participating. However, a good astroturfing operation is one that looks real enough that it is close to impossible to distinguish from the real thing, and the fact that quality game journalism is hard to come by lent credibility to the claim that became the meme that it was all about ethics in game journalism.

...

In the end, we argue that while #GG may have been only one instance of a campaign with harassment elements, the sentiments it cultivated and amplified as well as its operational logics have since been successfully employed in many similar online movements, including the current political campaigning associated with the so-called alt-right. Sennalen (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the edit you are suggesting WRT what kind of movement GG was? Was it a harassment movement? Was it about "ethics in journalism" (which has been thoroughly debunked by the RS)? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So here's the thing about the citations: we don't need them per MOS:LEADCITE, and the article didn't have them for some time. But there were endless drive-by "citation needed" taggings and the Talk page was flooded with "you're making this up" complaints. After we added citations to support every nuanced claim, we'd get "excessive number of citations" tags and complaints from the other end. As it is, the number of citations are somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure we can please everyone here.

As for the "movement" thing, I feel like we tend to call Gamergate a movement when the sources do and not when the sources don't—but it's a tough thing to summarize because that's a spectrum. We had an RfC about it a couple years in, by the way. Then in 2021 we had a move request that determined "harassment campaign" is a phrase widely used by reliable sources—particularly newer sources—and so that phrase gets used quite frequently. I mean, we could say "harassment campaign movement" instead, but that seems redundant. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying to remove them! The policy you're citing outright states that likely to be challenged material can/should have citations in the lede. I'm just of the opinion that having four or five citations for multiple sentences makes the article visually jarring. It doesn't help that the citations used don't have excerpts for what parts of each reference is actually used for what claims in each sentence. Therefore, I think it will be helpful if the article were to bundle these citations together (like demonstrated in H:CITEMERGE). :3 F4U (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you want to remove them—and I agree that there's likely room for improvement. What I meant was more (a) an explanation that the article's been at both ends of the spectrum and is currently somewhere in the middle, and (b) a heads up that no solution is going to satisfy everyone. From time to time, we do add citations when some nuance isn't cited in the lead, until someone comes along and culls back the cite-creep. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Woodroar (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there's clearly a concentric relationship of controversy ⊃ movement ⊃ harassment campaign. It's fine if this is an article strictly about the innermost element, but in that case it shouldn't have pretensions of covering the entire topic. Sennalen (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the edit you're suggesting WRT what the controversy was? And what was the movement about? What specifically do suggest saying the movement was about? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

One of the most consistent themes in the sources is that it was multifaceted. We should resist the temptation to try to make it tidy. Sennalen (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

What edit are suggesting to include the multifacets? "Ethics in Journalism" is a non-starter; that's been totally debunked. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Has it? Some sources say it was debunked. Some (and by some, I mean sources cited in the article, not Gamergaters) say there were legitimate concerns that just got overshadowed by harrassment. Wikipedia reports all the significant views without editorial bias. Sennalen (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

IF you support an edit with RS, suggest it here for discussion. You've being a bit vague WRT what kind of change you're suggesting. Though I again point out that EIJ will be beating a dead horse and moving rapidly toward IDHT. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm suggesting writing an opening paragraph that's actually based on the sources cited. There's no reason it should have to fall to me alone to make that happen. Sennalen (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I just want to echo ForbiddenRocky here -- if you could start by suggesting a one or two concrete changes you think would be appropriate, it would give us a better platform for discussion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be a productive exercise for someone else to paraphrase the sections I quoted above. Sennalen (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay then! I'll check back if and when that happens. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure consensus will not support EIJ/"multifaceted"/facets changes generally, thus you will have to make clear directs specific suggestions toward an edit yourself. Also, I suggest you look through the talk page archive and search on "facet", "multifacet", and/or "movement" before proceeding any further on pushing the idea of "multifaceted" again. Look at what the consensus has been; it's been long and pretty consistent. You will need to provide a lot of RS support, and a good clear edit. Look at the archive; avoid IDHT. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see a lot of hits on "facet", but not any cogent arguments against treating the topic the way sources do. Maybe you can link something you had in mind. Sennalen (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It has been completely debunked. The movement started as a harassment campaign and, when the original version fizzled, they pivoted to "ethics in game journalism" to gain a veneer of legitimacy. It still was targeted at specific women, then became a more broad "anti-woke" movement. Some people were likely pulled in by the game journalism angle, but the broad movement was never really about that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So there was harrassment campaign associated with a broad movement that attracted people interested in game journalism? Sennalen (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That's how they covered for the harassment campaign, by pretending it was about game journalism, when it was really about targeting women & leftists in gaming. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but sources also say that it was co-opted by MRAs and alt-right, and that people with genuine concerns about game journalism deaffiliated. It couldn't have become something and also have been that thing all along. Sennalen (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it could have been. The core of the movement was always the harassment campaign. Other people were lured in by the games-journalism angle, then co-opted into the harassment campaign. You're trying to act like the timeline is backwards from what is well-documented. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going by the sources I have read, particularly Mortensen or Salter. Is there a good source that establishes a different timeline? Sennalen (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Chat logs show how 4chan users created #GamerGate controversy

The saga grew from a single blog post written by an ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn, a game developer who designed Depression Quest. The post was a lengthy diatribe filled with details about Quinn's alleged relationships with men, including a tryst with a gaming journalist who works for Kotaku. Anonymous users on reddit and 4chan spun this material into a story about how Quinn allegedly slept with multiple gaming journalists in return for coverage, though the allegations did not support such a claim.

...

Quinn's opponents tried to turn the entire situation into an ethical debate about the relationship between gaming press and game developers.

It was a targeted harassment campaign to begin with, and they added the "ethics in game journalism" angle to lure people in & then set them loose against women & "woke" targets. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ars Technica has an editor's note, For those focused on the kernel of actual valid issues of game journalism ethics somehow churned up during this whole mess, this post over on my personal blog may be of interest. The blog link is dead, sadly, but ultimately this source supports the existence of valid ethics issues. Not that I would suggest directly using a source as old (2014) and as close to the issue.

Those logs are an important primary source. What exactly do they demonstrate? Ars Technica article concludes, While the hashtag campaigns gained steam and was eventually sustained by a larger population, the the chat logs shed new light on the motivations and actions of those who did the most to push #GamerGate into the spotlight. So this group neither started "Gamergate" nor represented the bulk of the people involved in it, just "pushed it into the spotlight". (Whether these nobodies in an IRC channel even "did the most" in that regard compared to public Twitter personalities seems dubious.)

Mortensen "Anger, Fear, and Games" (2016) contextualizes these logs in an even-handed way. The evidence available in the mainstream media as well as from logs of discussions on IRC channels and archives from 4chan (Johnston, 2014b) favors the critics’ point of view. There are still voices from an academic background that disagree strongly [...] and Many of those arguing strongly in favor of GG never knew how it had started, where the different ‘‘operations’’ were planned, and never agreed to the aggressive methods used since the beginning of the campaign.

The overall picture here is of a divergence between the "movement" and the "harassment campaign". Sennalen (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I understand your position, but would respectfully disagree, pointing to the weight of the reliable sources and more recent work. When you have established a consensus for your proposed changes, feel free to make them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Which sources would you prioritize? Sennalen (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I look to sources from 2020 or later, and preferably those in books or academic publications. But everyone must make his or her own determinations. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Of the 300-odd sources, about half are from 2014-2015 and also about half are RSOPINION. Do you consider that a problem? Sennalen (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The blog link is dead, sadly, but ultimately this source supports the existence of valid ethics issues.

No one denies that valid issues were brought up. Nevertheless, GamerGate was a harassment campaign using those issues as a smokescreen & recruitment tool.

The overall picture here is of a divergence between the "movement" and the "harassment campaign".

Not without completely distorting the picture. They are one and the same. Applying a respectable-looking false front to a harassment campaign doesn't change its nature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No one denies that valid issues were brought up.

What do you call the people who brought it up? Sennalen (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The original people who brought it up were the trolls pushing to harass women. Do the math from there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The trolls harassing women brought up valid ethics issues? That seems novel w.r.t. RS. Sennalen (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. Planting a seed of truth inside a lie makes it easier to swallow. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't deny it's a plausible theory on the face of it, but I haven't seen that particular interpretation in RS. Sennalen (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Because you're selectively interpreting sources to fit your preconceived notions. I'm tired of going around in circles with you on this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Read the talk page archives to review the existing consensus

@Sennalen: Again, please read through the existing talk archive to see where the consensus is. Search on "facet", "movement", and/or "multifacet". This discussion has be gone over and over multiple time. Please, avoid WP:IDHT and remember this is a WP:CTOP.

Make a suggestion for specific edit. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Like I said in the earlier reply, I see that a lot of discussions have been had on how the controversy was multifaceted and multifarious. It looks like at least two RfCs have confirmed that RS's call Gamergate a movement. Let's do absolutely avoid IDHT. Sennalen (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you looked it up, what kind of movement? And I ask you what the consensus in the past has been WRT multifaceted and ovement has been? What have been the arguments against your proposals in the past?

Again, make a suggest a specific edit. Show an example of the change you are trying to make.- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing. I found users (particularly MASEM) pointing out the nuance and range of views in RS. I didn't find cogent counter-arguments to following the RS. There appears to have been a pattern of evasion and whataboutism. Sennalen (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay then! Feel free to draft the article as you believe it should be, and we will consider here and see if your version achieves consensus. Sound good? Dumuzid (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I would read that as Masem not gaining consensus. Picking up where Masem left off is not likely to change the consensus. And picking up where Masem left off is a lot like picking up Masem's IDHT.

PROPOSE AN EDIT. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is based on reasons. Is there a reason not to describe Gamergate as Mortensen and Sihvonen do in the source that is cited for the definition of Gamergate? Sennalen (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

While the paper refers to Gamergate variously as a "campaign" or a "movement," the overall thrust is that it was the harassment (and in a related sense, the fueling of negative emotions) that made it notable. Consensus seems to be that this is accurately reflected in the definition as we have it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the current consensus is directly adjacent to the archived support for your position. You seem to be conveniently ignoring that. Please spend more time reading the support for the current consensus. It is in most of the responses to the what you're suggesting is support for you position.

Consensus will change, but you will need to provide a better argument that any that has been used in the past.

One of the most convincing arguments is to make a compelling suggestion for an edit or insertion; as in write something up for the wiki community to look at and discuss. Rehashing old arguments that have been settled is not likely to move the consensus.- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Apr 2023 WaPo Article: Launcher closure, GG, wider relevance

This mentions GG as having wider relevance, but kinda in passing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2023/03/31/launcher-mission-end/

in reference to GG: >We ignore issues fomenting in the gaming space at our own peril. Overlook them or dismiss them and we’re more likely to be caught surprised and off-balance when they manifest in other aspects of society.

- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

source Nature: passing comment GamerGate, misogyny, schadenfreude

The schadenfreude angle is new?

A qualitative investigation of tweets surrounding #gamergate—an online harassment campaign that significantly negatively impacted two female gamers—also found evidence that the internet discourse frequently displayed schadenfreude and resentment34. To further investigate this theory, future research could experimentally test whether the misfortunes of dominant women are particularly likely to result in online misogyny via schadenfreude.

from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31620-w - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In plain English, the people who spread the lies to hurt women enjoyed the hurt they brought upon the women. It's a rather unsurprising thing, and while likely true, doesn't bear special mention here. --Jayron32 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we mention the Deepfreeze Wiki? And Factual Feminist's defense?

Part of the stuff that originated from GamerGate is Deepfreeze Wiki[11], a site that's dedicated to examinate cronyism and unethical collusions. I know it's not an RS cause it's a Wiki, but don't you think it at the very least deserves a mention on the article?

Moving on to Factual Feminist, Christina Hoff-Summers defended GamerGate here. Her viewpoint as a feminist should at least be had in account.

Thanks for listening. MightyWeirdo (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

We would only mention the wiki if secondary sources talk about it.

And we don't need to add every last celebrity who spoke once about the topic, especially if it hasn't been covered in a secondary source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, Christina's gotten coverage by the Southern Poverty Law Center https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/08/christina-hoff-sommers-cant-take-single-line-criticism. The wiki, though, I couldn't find it. Sorry. MightyWeirdo (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If we used that source, we'd have to contextualize it the way the SPLC did. To quote them: Sommers was a prominent apologist of a vicious, far-reaching misogynistic online campaign. Also, describing an equity feminist like Sommers as simply a feminist is misleading. In fact she is commonly described as an anti-feminist. MrOllie (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it should not be contextualized. Yet, I don't really know about different types of feminism, so there's that. I think it should be put as "Between the apologists of GamerGate was Christina Hoff-Sommers, an equity feminist who was criticised". Thanks MightyWeirdo (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've been thinking about it, and it is WP:UNDUE after all. Let's leave the article the way it is for now. Sorry for the nuisance. MightyWeirdo (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)