Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Forbes contributor system

I was curious about this before, but never really looked into it until recently: The Forbes contributor system, under which Kain writes, is a blogging platform. Since he's not a professional in the field as far as I can tell, that means that per WP:NEWSBLOG we cannot cite him as a source. They don't appear to do any quality control beyond ensuring that the bloggers who post under the label avoid libel, so Forbes contributors are weak sources even by the standards of WP:NEWSBLOG,. which usually assumes more control than that. The lack of editorial oversight is specifically highlighed in that description of how it works (in terms of why it appeals to writers.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

His opinions have been cited by other sources, such as here by the BBC, and here by International Business Times. I don't see anything indicating he is not a reliable source in this subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

He's a blogger, posting in a format that does not have the editorial control necessary for us to use him as a source. News sources can quote him when they want, of course, but we cannot cite him directly on this site; as we discussed above, simply being quoted by a news source doesn't make a blogger into a reliable source. Even established professionals are, most of the time, only reliable when they are published in a format where their publications have suitable editorial controls. WP:RS and WP:V aren't about "does this person have shifty eyes? Are they likely to lie?" It has specific requirements, which the Forbes contributor system fails to meet. The reason for WP:NEWSBLOG in the first place is because people sometimes take blogs posted on prominent websites -- like Forbes -- and say "hey, we can use this as a source, because Forbes published it!" But when it is under a system like this where they have few editorial controls, we cannot rely on Forbes' reputation; anyone can publish whatever they want as a Forbes contributor, expressing whatever views they desire and making up whatever they wish, and Forbes will only get involved if they actually commit libel or the like. Therefore, something published there isn't a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll refer this to these archived discussion here and the following one then, I believe this matter has already been covered: [1]--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that one's not about the Forbes contributor system -- those discussions are under the impression that his posts at Forbes fall under their usual editorial control. The revelation that the Forbes' contributor system is a blogging platform and lacks editorial control changes things, since it means that things posted under that system generally can't be cited directly. --Aquillion (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your point is to address the Forbes contributor system, mine is to point out Erik Kain himself should be regarded as a reliable source. We can simply cite him by name and attribute his statements to him if that is the case here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't normally just consider a person a reliable source. There may be cases where we cite an established expert from a self-published source, but generally that should be avoided as if it's worth having in an encyclopedia then there should be secondary sources reporting on it. — Strongjam (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but again bringing up the instance that the article cites Arthur Chu directly for his opinion, which in your above statement should be avoided, and that Erik Kain has written for the same site as Mr. Chu.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? We cite articles published by reliable sources. If Kain writes a piece published by a reliable, third-party, publication then we could cite it. — Strongjam (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the fact of the matter is Kain did and has, Forbes has done nothing to distance themselves from his statements, nor has Slate or other websites he's written for. Again, I can bring up the talk page discussion regarding Chu from awhile back regarding the above matter with Ms. Young, but to paraphrase the wording there was "Chu's statements are reliable because he's notable and Slate is reliable". The reasoning there should go both ways: either they're both viable or neither is on these grounds.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact while I'll agree there are good faith intentions here, I believe when you start looking at some of the other sources this is going to create a rather slippery slope: several of these articles cited are not done by reporters or journalists, but contributors in the same capacity as Mr. Kain. If his statements are invalid on these grounds, then a lot of other citations would need to be re-examined too (case in point, Jessica Lachenal of the Mary Sue?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes can't distance themselves from his statements because he's not speaking for them. He's posting his opinions on their WP:NEWSBLOG contributor system, which means they don't exert any editorial control over what he says; that, in turn, means that things he posts there fail WP:RS. The things Chu publishes in Salon pass WP:RS because they are part of Salon's publication, not a blog, and therefore fall under its usual editorial controls. The key point is that WP:RS generally applies to publications (and the way things are published) rather than to people; the question isn't whether Kain is reliable, the question is whether things he publishes as part of the Forbes' contributor system are reliable in this context. And the problem is that they're not. They look like news pieces (which is why they managed to hang around for so long), but now that it's been noticed that they're not, they have to be removed. If he publishes other stuff under a non-blog format, we could cite those, but we cannot cite the stuff he publishes on Forbes under their contributor system. And see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; if you want to go over other sources and see if they qualify, go ahead. But note that the key issue here is that Forbes explicitly exerts almost no editorial control over its contributor system -- articles, even opinionated ones, can still qualify as WP:RS as long as they have editorial controls. The problem is that Forbes' contributor system lacks that and therefore nothing posted there is likely to pass WP:RS..--Aquillion (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Forbes contributor model is fundamentally different then Slate's published pieces. It is a blogging platform, not fact checked or under any real editorial control. Aquillion is being overly generous saying it is a WP:NEWSBLOG, I'd call it a content farm. I don't really give a damn if that means other sources are removed. If they are published under similar circumstances they should be. — Strongjam (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So for the record you're perfectly fine in removing sources from the article where the person cited is solely in a contributor capacity, and not actual site staff?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. That's different then what Forbes does. If a freelance writer submits a story to a reliable source, they vet it and exercise editorial control, then it is fine to cite it. If they instead have a network of literally thousands of "contributors" and exercise no editorial control over the piece then it should be removed. — Strongjam (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I'm not seeing a valid argument against Mr. Kain here. In fact I will going further and cite that earlier discussions involving Gawker treated it as a case-by-case source relying on the reliability of the author and not the site itself here. In fact I'm certain I can dig through several GA and FA processes I have undergone where the author and not the website was questioned. I feel in this instance discussing the reliability of Mr. Kain should be the issue, and his presence in multiple publications as cited above in that archived discussion seem to indicate such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the gist of the argument. Gawker, while not the greatest source in the world, exerts significant editorial control over people who publish there; it does fact-checking, issues retractions, and so on. These things mean that when Gawker publishes something (even an opinion piece), that gives the piece a degree of reliability that lets it pass WP:RS, at least under certain conditions. The problem is that Forbes contributors have no such oversight beyond the bare minimum necessary to avoid legal liability; his posts there are, in effect, Kain's private blog, which means it generally fails WP:RS. This doesn't mean that the identity of the author never matters, of course; but if you're asserting Kain's reputation in the field is so great that it overcomes the lack of editorial oversight by Forbes -- that, in other words, Erik Kain is so well-known and reputatable in the videogame industry that we could use his private blog as a source -- well, I just don't see it. He's a columnist. We can quote him when he publishes somewhere that provides editorial oversight, like most columnists. We can't randomly cite personal opinions from his blog as though the fact that his blog is hosted on Forbes makes it reliable or gives it special weight. --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPS applies: "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 third-party publications." Kain is an established expert, and Forbes (a 3rd party) has published his stuff. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he's only been published on videogames in the Forbes' contributor network, which is not a reliable third-party publication, for the reasons outlined above (the lack of editorial control means that it's not reliable.) Even if he were, note the next sentence: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." In the cases where Kain is worth covering, we can find other sources, since this topic has garnered so much coverage; we're not forced to rely on blogs here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

He's also covered the entertainment section for Forbes, but beyond that we are discussing an individual who has not only written for other publications but has also been cited for discussion by other publications. He is being cited here too in regards to this article for his opinion on matters related to the gaming and entertainment industry, something again other sites are utilizing quotes by him for his opinion. "Exercise caution" should not be read as "Exclude entirely".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

None of those things make him an established expert in this field; there's a huge gap between "this person is quoted somewhere" and "this person is a established expert." He's a blogger with sometimes-controversial opinions (which has sometimes attracted attention as a result); that doesn't make someone an expert in their field, certainly not to the point where we can cite blog posts by them. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly kind of surprised that he's still there as a source- I thought we established before that given it was a newsblog and he doesn't really have that much past experience in the field as a gamer or game journalist, we shouldn't be citing opinion or fact to him. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you read the above. We are talking about an individual whose writings have appeared in *multiple* publications, in fact I'm still rapidly turning up more such as The Atlantic as cited here. How exactly *isn't* he a reliable source if this many publications are quoting him and publishing his work?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man -- for the record, I think any of those articles at the Atlantic would count as a reliable source. But that doesn't mean that Mr. Kain always does, since The Atlantic has different editorial practices than does the individual. I'm honestly a bit on the fence about him as an expert on games -- has he published about them anywhere other than Forbes of which you are aware? Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick search actually turns up The Mother Jones discussing video game violence quite quickly. Most of his publications there involve politics. Can dig deeper if you'd like.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact I'll add two of the articles on The Atlantic are discussing entertainment. And cited as in the above by the Huffington Post in this video on #GamerGate here, one with Brianna Wu here, and the BBC here. Is that sufficient?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally consider someone an expert just because they were interviewed about it or wrote a column about it, but this isn't as clear cut as a scientific topic. Expert or not, there is no reason to use Kain's blog pieces here. We have no want for reliable, third party, sources. If there was anything that from by Kain's pieces that warranted inclusion in an encyclopedia it should be easy to find such things from reliable publications. — Strongjam (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kung Fu Man. For me it's not a question of "sufficiency," rather it's about trying to understand the totality of the circumstances. But I keep coming back to Strongjam's point. I'm not sure what there is here that can't be found in less 'borderline' sources (borderline meant only with regard to Wikipedia policy). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well for the sake of comparison, let's look at the Mary Sue references: these are all 3 contributor sources. Are they not in the same boat, if not worse?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not that they are called "contributors" but Forbes contributor system. — Strongjam (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, and I admit I'm going on a tangent here, but still a valid one: they're still contributors. Do we have evidence of greater editorial oversight from TMS than Forbes? In fact I'll point out one of these is written by a *subject in this very article*, and taken at face value. If Kain's statements cannot be cited, how can these?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the one by Wu is for a statement about Wu (WP:SELFSOURCE), and is also backed up with another source. As for the rest, Forbes model is fairly unique, hence the articles about it. If you have any links about the Mary Sue model that would suggest it's the same feel free to bring it up. — Strongjam (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe in the case of contributors it works the other way around, where you need to show proof of editorial oversight and reliability on those statements. Take reference 56, on the "woman acquiring her PhD on gamergate". This is covered in just one paragraph, backed up by a contributor who has no reference on the staff page, and is also a freelance reporter. Yet we've dedicated an entire half a paragraph to her article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so but if you find policy to the contrary ping me. — Strongjam (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well for the time being, unless another mainstream source actively discusses the "PhD" and "Death Eaters" matters (as Aquillion has pushed a need for), I'm going to remove that source as WP:UNDUE.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is another source on that one if we do want to cover it. That seems to be all the coverage it got (aside from a mention here).--Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah unless that picks up I really don't see a need for it in the article. The "death eaters" thing didn't even catch on, though the lady doing her doctorate on the subject may get covered again down the road.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

also [2]. . Note that this started with a question about Erik Kain, who we describe by both names or, sometimes, as "Kain". Here, we describe an expert but don't use her name , referring to her as "a woman" and "the lady". One source should be kept, one should be tossed right now now now. . What makes one thing different from the other? wait.... Don't' tell me. I know I'll think of it....MarkBernstein (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Really, Bernstein? Are you trying to make this a sexist thing? Are you trying to start something just because of that? GamerPro64 13:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing: Eric Kain is a noted expert in video games (which GG fall under) contributing an opinion towards a reliable website (Forbes). Sheena Goodyear is a noted expert in contemporary cultural studies (which GG also falls under) contributing an opinion towards a reliable website (The Mary Sue). Both sites use a similar contributor model to allow non-editorial-contral but oversigthed opinion and news pieces to be include. Either both are acceptable sources for this or neither of them are. A separate argue exists if the content of either should be included but to dismiss one while the other is kept based on RS arguments is clearly a problem. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: They aren't similar models at all. The Forbes model is to give blog spaces to thousands of writers where they can post with no editorial oversight, no fact checking before publication, and a disclaimer of the opinions expressed. — Strongjam (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And from what I can see, the Mary Sue's "Contributor" system is the same thing. They have a separate staff of professional writers, but they invite other contributors to help give them content, but no indication this content is reviewed/edited/fact checked. And the piece in question from Sheena Goodyear is specifically labeled as such. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

How is it the same thing? At Forbes a contributor can publish with no oversight, at Mary Sue they accept submissions and they decide whether to publish it, the piece also contains no disclaimer of opinions as far as I can see. — Strongjam (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes still reviews (not fact checks) to avoid any blatant problem articles, so that's the same as Mary Sue. Also from TMS's disclaimer page "The Mary Sue does not routinely moderate, screen, or edit content contributed by readers and is not responsible for the opinions or statements of contributors." which is the equivalent of the Forbes piece. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I think that's a misreading of The Mary Sue's disclaimer, though I am not sure, because it is not at all well drafted. The dichotomy above between "edited content" and "reader comments" leads me to believe that the 'opinions or statements of contributors' being disclaimed are not those in the articles themselves, but rather those contributors might make outside of articles. Thus, if Ms, Goodyear were to show up in comments (even to her own article) and say 'by the way, I know for a fact that Dumuzid has committed horrible crimes x, y, and z...." I can't go after the site itself under a respondeat superior theory. The fact that the disclaimer does not stake out "unedited contributor pieces" or the like, along with the lack of actual disclaimers on the articles, supports this conclusion, to my mind. But again, it is not the clearest legalese, so I am not sure. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It’s unclear to me whether MASEM is arguing that sponsored weblogs platforms are equivalent to traditional journalism (in which case he is arguing to overturn policy on self-published sources), whether he is arguing that magazine articles not written by staff writers are unreliable (in which case he is arguing that moat magazines and all scholarly journals are unreliable -- also a policy upheaval), that he is arguing from private knowledge of the editorial process at Mary Sue, that he is arguing from a fundamental misunderstanding of magazine editing, or whether he is trying to express something else. The masthead at The Mary Sue lists three Editors, two Assistant Editors, and a Weekend editor; it sounds to me like they're a magazine, not a weblog platform. Their page seeking new Contributors asks for the conventional story pitch -- again, this sounds exactly like a magazine and nothing at all like a weblog platform. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not lawyers here, but the intent of the Disclaimer page is surely to disclaim responsibility for reader-contributed content -- that is, comments on the articles, rather than to disclaim responsibility for editorial content. Note too the extensive comment moderation policy. The disclaimer also warns that some topics, such as gossip, are inherently dubious, but nothing on this article raises that problem. The magazine's editorial content is not disclaimed -- it cannot be -- and no distinction is made in the presentation of the article under discussion from the presentation of, for example, this note which, appearing under the byline of an editor of the magazine, cannot be disclaimed. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes is a magazine (with a much much longer history), and they do the same thing. The Contributor model has become very popular throughout new media sites. Everything about how TMS accepts Contributions reads exactly the same as Forbes accepts Contributions (as with nearly all other new media sites that use this approach); there is a high level vetting (but not fact-checking) process, to make sure the content is relevant to the site's interest and is not likely to sic a pack of lawyers on them, and that's it. TMS's page for contributions is not for story pitches but if you can help provide them content regularly. [3]. So it is no different from Forbes. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's immensely different. As of 2013 Forbes had 2,500 contributors. In the last 24-hours they have published 150+ articles. Over at Mary Sue they're averaging about 3 or 4 contributor pieces a day. The models are completely different. — Strongjam (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes also has a much larger editorial staff, compared to about 8 on TMS per their about page. From a purpose of evaluating a source, they are the same model. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any actual evidence they are the same model? Because they look vastly different, and the Forbes model has been reported on extensively as being novel. Just because they both use the term "contributor" does not mean they are the same model. — Strongjam (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence it is, nor isn't; the way I read the pages at TMS it seems like it is similar "we vet but don't do rigorous fact checking" type approach that Forbes explicitly states. But it is has the hallmarks of being the same model that Fobres introduced used across many websites today, and this approach is becoming more common to crowd-source news. The point though still comes to the fact that we have two experts from two different fields, writing pieces in an otherwise-reliable third-party source, thus meeting the minimum allowance for WP:SPS. In Kain's part, since we know for sure that Forbes does not rigorously fact check, we should keep it to Kain's opinions as usable aspects. In Goodyear's case, as we don't necessarily know about fact-checking for sure but can verify it against another source, we can use the piece to report the fact about the difficulties in reporting, both based on using SPS as a baseline. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, with all due respect, you seem to be unusually obtuse on this. Aside from any impact on this page, can you really believe that "here's your own page, we'll pay for x number of hits" is the same model as "send us a pitch?" It's not outcome determinative for me, but it seems obvious that the sites rely on very different journalistic frameworks. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Their contributor page does not in any way suggest they are looking for one-off stories ; they want people that can contribute many stories, and the pitch is the type of stories they might write. And given that the entire model of journalism today is about drawing hits and advertising revenue, I see little difference in terms of evaluating whether to include an opinion of a expert in the field regardless because of how that opinion was published. WP:SPS is pretty clear that we can use these types of opinion pieces if editors want to insist that Forbes' contributor stories are web blogs as long as we've established the person is considered an expert in the field. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, let's deal with one issue at a time, so my aging brain can keep up. Do you believe The Mary Sue's article is reliable enough to be included in the article? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with its inclusion (in fact, I think I added that part originally). I'm just at issue with the double standard here when for all purposes they seem to be equivalent editorial aspects at play. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, to be honest, I don't know yet where I come down on Mr. Kain's inclusion, that's something I am still trying to come to grips with. But whether I come down on the side of inclusion or not, it seems there is a very different basis to me. We are standing on The Mary Sue's own reliability for that article, as I believe it was edited and literally published by the site (i.e., someone at The Mary Sue pushed the button to put it on the web, not Ms. Goodyear). As for Mr. Kain, we would be relying either on his own stature as an expert (I'm on the fence here, mainly due to my own lack of research), or, perhaps (?) on Forbes' decision to include him as an expert. What seems clear to me is that The Mary Sue made a decision to publish the article in question, while Forbes made a decision to bring Mr. Kain on to its platform -- and to me those are different decisions (though they may not demand different outcomes). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, even when Kain or any other contributor hits "submit" on their blog post, someone higher up the chain at Forbes is doing a review before it hits the web. They aren't doing anything close to the job of a normal editor, obviously, and things that are a problem can still slip through the cracks (see the example in [4]), but it's not a platform that direct publication is done by the writer without any other input. And I will come back again to stress that both are experts in their fields and both sites respectively do have clear procedures for vetting these people before they are allowed to contribute (eg to make sure they aren't going to go off the handle). --MASEM (t) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, can you show me why you believe this to be so? Everything I am seeing is telling me that it's all on the contributors, but the information I see is circumstantial, so to speak, and often third-hand. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

[5] "By far the most divisive network on this list is Forbes, which has staked both its brand and digital future on its contributor network. The network, whose population fluctuates between 1,200 and 1,300 contributors, is either the future of journalism or the industry’s end, depending on whom you ask. Forbes’s contributors — 40 percent of whom are either current or former journalists — can produce as many as 400 posts per day. While the network has a reputation for being freewheeling and unsupervised, its efforts are monitored by Forbes’ 40-person editorial staff, which help oversee the site’s output."(emph mine). --MASEM (t) 16:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I do not doubt that there is some oversight, but I still believe the publishing is done by the contributors themselves based on everything I am seeing (oversight and editing are different activities). Moreover, based on l'affaire Frezza [6], it's my belief that the editorial staff function more as a quick-reaction crisis management squad than as editors engaged in improving the contributors' writing. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Another source [7] "In a phone interview, DVorkin explained that the Forbes website is divided into many channels — investing, technology, entrepreneurs, business, etc. — and each of those channels has a staff editor, typically someone who has been at the magazine for at least a decade. “Each of those editors are responsible for final approval of recruiting and for monitoring all those contributors for the channel.” Each editor also has at least one producer working under him, responsible for editorial review, technology support, and content programming decisions." I am in total agreement they work more hands-off and tend to be more reactionary than precautionary per that incident above and another from the CJR link, but everything points to someone in the middle that checks content between the steps of the contributor pressing "publish" and it actually being on the web. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Masem:'s characterization of The Mary Sue’s editorial process, “there is a high level vetting (but not fact-checking) process, to make sure the content is relevant to the site's interest and is not likely to sic a pack of lawyers on them, and that's it”, may be accurate -- I have doubts, but perhaps Masem has personal inside knowledge about this, too. If not accurate, however, it is entirely possibly that the publisher or managing editor would regard this as an attack on their personal and professional integrity. If I were writing this, I'd want to be very confident that what’s written above is an accurate representation of that organization’s editorial practice, and that I could prove this. We’re wandering very close to BLP and possibly to defamation. At the very least, if we don’t redact this, someone should contact The Mary Sue and ask whether or not they stand behind the story; since we're attacking their integrity, they deserve an opportunity to comment for the record. Since (a) the story was also reported by a second source, and (b) there is no reason for doubt that I can see, this is likely to induce much scratching of heads; that won't help the project if they decide to defend their reputation in court and point out that, even though we had no reason for doubt, Wikipedia distributed spurious allegations of editorial neglect anyway. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussing if a RS is an RS and the nature of the editorial process is in absolutely no way a BLP violation. (Remember Auerbach?) And you are now making personal attacks against me (by trying to question my character), immediately stop. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I contacted Erik Kain, and he said Forbes contributors are subject to the same fact-checking as regular columnists. I asked about a link to any specific page explaining that policy and am waiting for a reply. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The question here is whether this particular piece was an editorial contribution or a blog post -- not whether contributors are edited as stringently as staff writers, which goes without saying. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Except everyone here is arguing that the difference between an "editorial contribution" and a "blog post" is the fact that there's someone that has done editorial oversight of the post before posted. And if Forbes does have this, then these contributions are not blog posts but editorial contributions just as we're claiming TMS has. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if there was editorial oversight (at best it's very minimal,) the articles linked to from here show that Forbes Contributor system has a negative reputation for fact checking, failing WP:IRS. At best these WP:NEWSBLOG, and generally we should treat them as WP:SPS. — Strongjam (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And as pointed out, SPS does allow us to use opinions of experts posted in this manner, if we take that as the worst case. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is fine, but policy suggests caution and we have a pile of reliable, third party, sources. I'm not seeing anything unique about his opinion that is required for the article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Because he provides a counterpoint opinion from an expert in that field that is necessary to cover this topic objectively, as previously identified from the bias RFC from several months back. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I must be missing something then as we weren't exactly using his pieces for much of anything. — Strongjam (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather certain I could and can find use for many of his articles to both bolster and offer counter points here. Frankly planned to prior to this but given the rapid-fire revert nature of several editors here without engaging in discussion first it's becoming excessively difficult to approach the article. You can hardly use what was removed as proof that "he had nothing to add" when we have this big an ongoing discussion on him.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to be explicit: writing that “there is a high level vetting (but not fact-checking) process, to make sure the content is relevant to the site's interest and is not likely to sic a pack of lawyers on them, and that's it” is only a reasonable discussion of whether The Mary Sue is a reliable source if the writer knows that this is true. If this were speculation, then it would be an improper attack on the editor and publisher. If it were then published without due care for confirming its veracity, the publication might be construed as reckless. I am making no attacks against anyone’s character; I’m pointing out that, when we write that the editorial process at The Mary Sue is confined to relevance and legality without further scrutiny and care, we’d best be very confident that we stand on very firm ground. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No one is attacking the editor or publisher, we're discussing the source, and BLP does not apply to business entities. Determining if a site (not any specific person) has certain types of editing standards is not a BLP issue and is within the necessary discussion of evaluating a source as an RS. And as TMS does not have clear statements about how their process works, we may make judgement calls that might not reflect what they actually do. I'm going to stress that I am not against TMS/Goodyear as a source here, but that there's a double standard that's being applied to reject Forbes/Kain here. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

REVIEWING THE BIDDING: As I understand it, our understanding is that the Eric Kain’s piece was part of a branded blogging system, in which Forbes provides weblog services to people whom it publishes but that is not otherwise edited. The Mary Sue says it is a magazine, it has three editors and two assistant editors, and it requests that writers pitch stories to them -- in other words, it appears to conduct its business as would a standard magazine. The two cases do not appear to be comparable. As best I can determine, we have no reason to believe that Kain’s piece was commissioned or that its rights were purchased, and we have no reason to believe that the Goodyear piece was not commissioned or that its rights were not purchased. Finally, while BLP does not apply to organizations, it very much does apply to individuals who hold positions of responsibility in organizations: stating that The Mary Sue fails to uphold journalistic standards could, and in most fora would, be taken as an indictment of the conduct of its publisher and managing editor. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Who ever said TMS "fails to uphold journalistic standards"? No one questioned their non-contributor pieces here, just the contributor pieces, which are not clear where their vetting process sits for them. Also, the logic you are using to say that questioning editorial standards for any site is potentially BLP means we should be shutting down WP:RS/N as a trove of BLP violations (which it's not). As a tertiary source, evaluating what sources to be included, we can vet and evaluate the editorial practices at any site as a necessary function of building an encyclopedia, and should not be treated as an act of bad faith or BLP violations if the answer is not crystal clear (such as if in the case if someone opted to argue the NYTimes did not have editorial oversight). --MASEM (t) 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What precisely do you mean by the phrase "contributor pieces" in the above paragraph? Do you mean, for example, "all writing credited to writers who are not among the seven staff members on the masthead"? Or do you mean something else? (As for the rest, you wrote a specific account regarding the editorial practice of a specific editor at a specific magazine, and despite repeated requests you have not indicated that you believe your account to be true or why you believe that to be true. You may believe this frees you from culpability, but others may find that less persuasive). MarkBernstein (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Contributor pieces" are exactly what we have been discussing: those at TMS labeled at the top "Contributor", while in the case of Forbes, those where the byline is labeled "Contributor". And I never mention any specific editor. I mentioned a Contributor (Goodyear) that is clearly labeled as such by TMS website, but I never mentioned any of the full-time on-staff editors at all. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

To get back at this, given that Kain has put out a retrospective on GG (though still under all the forbes contributor labels), there are several points Kain makes in this that are reasonable counteropinions to be included (for example, his believe that there are ethics problems but GG has focused on the trees and not the forest; that getting a label of GG was a way to finally pigeonhole the sides of a longer battle that started before, eg the culture war aspect, and some other points). Again, not for fact, but the opinion of a expert in the field published by a third-party with some (but not full fact-checking) oversight should be appropriate to include as we do with sources like the Mary Sue that use the same approach. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wa Post restraining order article

Seeing this just added though having read the reference earlier (and also seeing it brought up at Quinn's page), is this really needed in the present article? If the situation on the restraint order goes beyond just the local court to a significant free speech vs privacy rights situation, then that might be useful; but here it is more noise above and beyond noting the original restraining order and how it was attributed to the claims on Gjoni's intent, and that's driving far off the GG subject otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I added it for BLP reasons. If we're mentioning that Gjoni has a restraining order against him, it should be noted that a prominent lawyer views it as unconstitutional. Alternatively can the source be used to note that Quinn has filed for the order to be vacated? I would have preferred to add that, but wasn't sure whether I could source that information from an opinion piece. Given that it's from a lawyer involved in the appeal it's highly unlikely to be false information. Brustopher (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly say that I have no qualms including the motion to vacate the order as sourced from Mr. Volokh, but how can the existence of a restraining order, whether unconstitutional or not, possibly be a BLP issue? Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A restraining order is something that reflects extremely negatively upon a person. If there is a chance the order is illegitimate it could be an issue for us not to note that once legal experts have. If the order is vacated it would be an issue for us to claim it is still in place. Brustopher (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I of course agree that we should note if the order is vacated for any reason. But Volokh is arguing that the court exceeded its authority in granting the order; it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Gjoni's conduct or lack thereof. If the potential for reversal upon appeal can be a BLP issue, then every judicial decision is suspect until the appellate window has run. Or so I would think! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You may have regarding what Volokh is arguing. I'll change the information to the motion to vacate being filed. Brustopher (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What I think I have a problem with is that it is presently undue weight on the issue of the restraining order, and we're only talking about a court brief which is the academic opinions of the writers as opposed to case law. At this point in the situation, I'm wondering how much of this is critical towards the GG situation. It's a rabbit trial to cover it now in that it gets severely off the topic here to handle explaining the sides. It might become a central aspect of GG, it might not, and to that I'd actually argue to omit even the mention of the order until we know more on the judicial ruling. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I am definitely sympathetic to your view here, but I am torn because this does seem like an important offshoot of the 'creation moment' of gamergate, so to speak. I could very easily go either way--and even if the order is overturned, someday, were someone to write a history of this mess (heaven forbid!), the order would be a necessary part thereof, I think. Still, I just don't know. Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an option to remove the restraining order facet in the first place, it is a minor offshoot right now, not necessary to understand GG as a whole, and thus eliminates the need to discuss the counterpoint that gets us offtrack. Or, alternatively, moved elsewhere outside of the history section to an analysis piece, to talk about it where there's some room. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece. We shouldn't be using it to support any statements regarding a living person. I have removed the source per BLP for now. If consensus says we include it, we can add it back. Woodroar (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The facts sourced from the opinion piece, regard legal proceedings in which the reputable legal expert who has written the piece is involved. The chance that this claim is in anyway false is close to 0. If anything this statement should be included per BLP, to note that the restraining order will likely not be in place for long. Brustopher (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's still his opinion regarding a legal dispute involving two (named) persons, claims about other (named) persons' legal opinions, and even claims that a (named) body of people made an incorrect legal decision. There's literally nothing in here that doesn't involve claims about an identifiable living person. For all I know, he's absolutely right, but it's still an opinion piece. Woodroar (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I would normally lean against inclusion of this claim, but if the restraining order is mentioned in the article, it should be mentioned that it is in the process of being vacated. I think the reputation of the writer is enough to justify its usage. I've brought the issue to WP:RSN for further discussion. Brustopher (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand the concern of a BLP violation about Gjoni. Personally, I'd rather remove any claims about him rather than back them up with an opinion piece. We really shouldn't be making any claims regarding living persons unless backed up by a watertight, reliable news source. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputes about the legal decisions made by the judiciary in the course of doing their job is definitely not a BLP issue. That's how the entire court system works in the appeals - identifying what they believe is mistaken application of law towards the decision. That's not any type of claim about a living person but about a decision. There still things we'd treat as BLPs in the WaPost article (it explains why the case is named as such, which is something we as done on Quinn's page should very much avoid per BLPNAME), but in the general case, discussing and outlined why a legal decision might be wrong using established law isn't a BLP violation. I am still on the side of not including this due to the rabbit trial aspect. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both Woodroar and Masem here. Agree with Masem's opinion that it's a minor offshoot at the moment, and with Woodroar about just removing the whole bit Gjoni. I don't think it's important for the readers understanding of Gamergate. As an aside, I think BLPPRIVACY is better policy to cite here, the principle of BLPNAME applies, but BLPPRIVACY is much more direct in its language. — Strongjam (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is a prime example of the failings of Wikipedia's model

Gamergate's predominant focus has been on the unethical practice of games journalists. Is it any surprise that the journalists that you've used as sources have seriously inflated claims of harassment in order to deflect this criticism? They're not neutral parties. And neither are so many of the editors pushing their agenda on here. The only responsible thing to do is to wipe the entire thing clean and start over, with very strict arbitration. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it endlessly fascinating that the only neutral arbiters when it comes to gamergate are supporters of gamergate. It's really quite remarkable. Dumuzid (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather certain Masem isn't a Gamergate supporter. On subject though, you can understand the concern when the same editors go out of their way to shoot down or remove any sources not covering the subject in a negative light, and then claim WP:UNDUE on others because those sources are present. Frankly I find that both fascinating and a tad bit concerning as a long-term editor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not as endlessly fascinating as how the only acceptable narrative on a supposed encyclopedia are from those who oppose gamergate. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The rules for the acceptable narrative are quite explicitly set out in WP:WEIGHT if you want to check them out. If anything we err on the side of taking GamerGate claims more seriously than our sources. Artw (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh, except that certain regular editors of this page have fought tooth and nail against the inclusion of any source that speaks about Gamergate in favorable terms, even when it's from a publication used elsewhere in the article, e.g. Polygon. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Scetoaux, I know venting feels good, but you are a far more experienced Wikipedian than I am. Why not suggest changes to the existing article or draft a new one? I daresay if we simply erased the current article and tried again, you'd be just as dissatisfied. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Try it. If nothing else, it'll bring the agenda-pushers out front and center. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean no offense, but "try it" is not a particularly compelling argument. Just for myself, I don't find it that difficult to analyze editors' stances or to figure out who is here to improve the encyclopedia and who is not. By all means, advocate for the course of action you think best. But in the meantime, it might help everyone if you tried to improve the existing article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth I would actually be pretty interested in seeing what a draft rewritten from scratch would look like. I've been thinking about writing a draft solely using sources published in academic journals, to see if it would reveal anything interesting. Brustopher (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Right now the number of academic sources is very low, less than 10 judging by a google scholar search (using "-ant" to avoid the biology side, and ignoring hits from newspapers and mainstream magazines and websites). I've said before that I fully expect that there will be a wealth of papers in a few years from the social sciences that will try to understand GG (and probably other of these culture wars like the Hugos) from a psychological and cultural standpoint, but that will take a lot of time. We do need to recognize the bulk of the sourcing for this now and for at least a year or so from now is going to come from "current affairs"-type sources (newspapers, magazines, and websites) --MASEM (t) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI "Gamer gate" with the space has a few hits as well. I've also had good luck adding other related terms in to try and filter out ant articles (e.g. Quinn, Sarkeesian, video games, etc...) — Strongjam (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily proposing it as a replacement for this article, but more as a way to brainstorm ideas for improvement. 10 sources is more than enough to write something substantial worth discussing. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles probably have less than 10 sources used. I might get started on it some time this week. Brustopher (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welcome back to Wikipedia! I see that you've been an editor for many years but hadn’t been around much, having semi-retired in 2013 until returning. Interesting how often that happens! MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Mark, please assume some good faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) My God, Bernstein. At least take this to peoples talk pages before you act condescending in front of others. GamerPro64 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Remember to assume good faith about assuming good faith, Kung Fu Man and GamerPro64 (you especially should know better as a hopeful to the admin position)- to my eyes, Bernstein seems positively angelic with the leeway he's giving our friend Scetoaux here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

|}

Vocativ on divisions w/ GG movement

[8] Note that the article does tread close to BLP issues (it names two specific GGers as part of the GG leadership alongside making extreme claims on the group), but it comes to state that part of the issue of the leaderless nature of GG is that it has created in-fighting of factions within the movement (particularly a difference between the "SJW" side and the ethic side) and does not give any idea of unity to their message. It also has a few updated states (10 mill tweets of GG since August '14, and an estimated 50,000 GGers based on KIA sub numbers). --MASEM (t) 05:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it really says that. It says, more or less, that comparatively few people involved in it think it's only about videogames or ethics, and those who tried to be outspoken about those subjects were rapidly marginalized and forced out by the angry reactionary culture warriors. The overall gist of it is that the discussion of ethics is mostly a marginal aspect that caught the attention of a few people, but that the overarching scope of Gamergate and the people who are most enthusiastic about it are more about using that as a bludgeon in their culture wars. It definitely states, pretty unequivocally, that "ethics only" is marginal and has been forced out While they're unscientific, one of the polls it cites says it makes up as little as 4%; even the other one only has it at 17%. And the article cites numerous people -- including both outsiders who have analyzed it and people from inside it -- who say that they don't think it's primarily about videogames or ethics. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Which stresses to the point that we shouldn't be calling it outright an harassment movement either because there's no idea what GG really is internally. But I will still point to the fact that it does document infighting within the movement which has contributed to its lack of a message or effectiveness. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We do already cover both the fact that there are aspects to it other than harassment, and the fact that there are divisions and confusion over how to define it. But our overarching coverage has to reflect the relative weight given in reliable sources... and, honestly, if you read "fight SJW colonization" as being the side that mostly focuses on harassment (which is itself obviously a controversial position, but which, I think, is how most of the sources that divide Gamergate into 'factions' read it -- with the usual caveat that they define 'harassment' differently than you might), then not just that article but informal "internal" Gamergate polls (to the extent that that's a thing) seem to back up the way we're weighting it. At the very least, virtually every source, including that one, seems to agree that while some people bought into it as their main focus, "only ethics" is a very minor part of the controversy overall. --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As a note, we have nothing about the divide in the article. We mention ethics and SJW as two aspects of what GG is stated is about but do not make it clear as this article states that that's actually a noticeable division within the movement, and that the SJW side tend to have the numbers and/or make the most noise as to also drown out the ethics aspect. This is partially why the mainstream press calls out the movement as disorganized, if there's this type of infighting and lack of unified vision. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Vocativ even a reliable source on Wikipedia? I've never even heard of it until it was suggested as a source before and even then there wasn't a clear answer. GamerPro64 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Was curious about this myself as I'm not familiar with them. Nothing on RSN, the Notable stories section on seems to suggest they have a positive reputation fact-checking, but I haven't dug into it much more then that. As long as we avoid any claims about living people I think its fine, if a bit weak given it's young age as a publication. If there is a specific statement we want to source from there we could take it to WP:RSN if needed. — Strongjam (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the two factoids that I think help on scope: 10M tweets and 50,000 KIA subs as estimate of GG size (which CRJ used before), are pretty straight forward to verify and consistent with information out there; a source like this can simply be used as to indicate an "as of" marker. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean sure. We're close to a year of this happening. If there's no other article that has mentioned this yet we can use it. Might be a different story once day 365 hits. GamerPro64 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia: The Ideologically Driven 'Encyclopedia' of the Absurd

Unproductive. Gamaliel (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Wikipedia controversy began in January 2001 and concerns one-sided political propaganda, which must be fought tooth and nail in order to get anything even resembling the truth covered. It is most notable for a harassment campaign that sought to drive several non-feminist editors from the site, including everyone who has commented on this page who is not absolutely dedicated to supporting radical feminist causes in their coverage and only giving coverage exclusively to radical feminist perspectives. They sandwich anything not from a radical feminist source, when it must be covered at all, between sentences containing pro-feminist denials of anything any non-feminist says both in the sentence immediately before, and in the sentence immediately after the non-feminist's view is mentioned. The campaign of harassment was coordinated by both editors and staff and included threats of banning people simply for adding the truth, no matter how many or how credible their sources are. Wikipedia has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over feminism, in which feminists assert the total dominance of their ideology over existing institutions, denigrating anyone who even questions this as "ignorant" despite not being able to name any specific facts which they can claim said people are ignorant of. Some of the people using Wikipedia have said their goal is to provide a "neutral point of view" by opposing non-feminist editors simply trying to cover GamerGate in the same way as Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among non-feminists. These concerns have been widely dismissed by Gamergaters as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics GamerGate is concerned with. Users of the GamerGate hashtag launched email campaigns, targeting the advertisers of publications which clearly engage in unethical practices, you cretins. --BenMcLean (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Clever wordplay aside, I notice you mention the truth being dismissed from "credible sources." Can I ask which credible sources you are referring to, and what truths from them you'd like to integrate into the article?Brustopher (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I think that the whole article should be rewritten from scratch on the assumption that you can't cite anti-X people as an authority on X, no matter what X is. It's nonsense and everybody knows it. As for credible sources, scroll around on this talk page and in it's archives. Plenty have been posted. --BenMcLean (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Off-topic. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Perhaps Wikipedia should institute an "Assume Non-Cretinism" policy? Dumuzid (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Welcome back to Wikipedia! I see that you've been an editor for many years but hadn’t been around much until returning to edit in the Frankfurt School/Cultural Marxism area and now here. Do you think Wikipedia has been a manifestation of a culture war over feminism? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin in American Spectator

[9] Baldwin self-written piece in American Spectator, speaking in broad terms of a GG goal. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also related is this interview/debate between Georgia Young, Cathy Young, and Jesse Singal on Huffington Post Live from yesterday [10], where both Youngs point to the same issue that Baldwin speaks of regarding biased reporting of GG that have been pointed out in other off-centralist/right-wing-ish sources previously identified. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Look a counter-opinion Why I Became Anti-GamerGate: A Transgender Woman’s Evolution On The Issue. I suspect this week will have more "one year later" things to look at. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow. They have their own "GamerGate" section on their website. With articles like Why GamerGate Matters To Me As A Black Developer. I think they're all considered to be opinion pieces, though. GamerPro64 16:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a good place to bring this up, I suppose, as Adam Baldwin holds such a curious place in this context. While he coined the hashtag #gamergate, as I understand it, he's not particularly an expert on video games, video game journalism, harassment, or anything else sort of pro or con, unless we widen out to 'culture war' proportions. It just strikes me as a bit funny that in a way he's the originator, but for most things his opinion isn't really usable? Am I right about this, or have I lost the plot a long the way? Happy to hear others' thoughts. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He did originate the term, so I don't think it's completely out of place to have his opinion on what he thinks GG is about. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. Could be worth noting what the person who coined GG thinks about all of this after an entire year. GamerPro64 17:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind on the Rise Miami News aspects for GG, is that after the bomb threat at AirPlay they offered to publish any opinion relating to GG. So there are a lot of op-eds there - mostly pro for obvious reasons - but they are op-eds by random people and not necessarily any expert authority on the situation. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think those Rise Miami pieces are really useful. I think of them more as "Letters to the editor". — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. An interesting retrospective for the most part but essentially on par with citing community game reviews in an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost No One Sided with #GamerGate

Almost No One Sided with #GamerGate: A Research Paper on the Internet’s Reaction to Last Year’s Mob - Research paper on reactions to gamergate with the conclusion: The results of this project suggest that the vast majority of people do in fact equate GamerGate with online harassment, sexism, and/or misogyny. More people see GamerGate as a toxic mob rather than a legitimate movement worthy of respect.

Somce it's on a blog I doubt we are going to be able to use it directly, however the its data set may be of interest. Artw (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Amateur research projects attempting to quantify Gamergate have come up here before. General consensus is not to use them. Also I heavily dispute the claim this guy is making that Wikipedia "Explicitly defines GamerGate as an anti-feminist harassment campaign."Brustopher (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. All his data set is is a listing of Alexa ratings for certain websites. Not that hard to find them anyway. GamerPro64 16:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdraw per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

• Gamergate controversy → Gamergate
• Gamergate → Gamergate (ant)

– This article is the primary topic of "Gamergate", compared to the article about the ant. The article about the ant has only received ~200 views per month before August 2014, and has since received 4 to 6 digit page views per month. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence that most people typing in "Gamergate" are looking for this article, instead of the article about the ant. Long-term significance of this article should not be a concern because a year has passed since the beginning of the controversy, and this type of move has happened before (see Talk:Blank Space#Requested move 15 November 2014). This move would also prevent any arguments over the suffix for the article (controversy, movement, harassment, etc.) Obviously, a hatnote should be added to this article if the move is to take place. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer to move the ant, leave this page in place, and let Gamergate redirect here. Numerous Web pages have links to the history of this article. As I understand it, the move would at one blow break all those links. Retaining the qualified name here also avoids a long and complex discussion about the notability of this shadowy anonymous movement. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, as both WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE weight – The ant is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the word Gamergate, and the insignificant and largely unknown controversy cannot take primacy from a important and long-standing variety of ant. This would be blowing the so-called "controversy" out of proportion, to the disdain of a genuine scientific topic. Note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifies that the primary topic should have long-standing educational significance, which this article does not have. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Significant coverage is about the events, implications, and responses rather than the GamerGate "movement" (or whatever) itself. Even without the ant, "controversy" would still be a more appropriate title. Woodroar (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per RGloucester. In the long run, this gamergate is just a facet of misogyny while the other is a thing that has existed since before human civilization.--Jorm (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose to avoid endless stupid "what is gamergate" discussions. Artw (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to the endless and stupid "what is gamergate" discussions that the Gamergate fans insist we have right here, every two weeks? [grin]MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of the "but you cannot define Gamergate because it does not define itself!" ones die pretty quickly when you point out the current article title is pretty all encompassing. Artw (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per RECENTISM, and that we nearly always give weight to scientific and humanities topics that will exist into perpetuity. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucester and Masem. — Strongjam (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Guardian interview with Sarkeesian

[11] Most of it covers opinions and stances we have already, but I've included a couple points that are new-ish: the phrase "actually, it's about ethics in journalism" as a meme that arose from GG (which I've been trying to find an RS for a long time with no luck), and the "locker room" concept that Sarkeesian believes the Internet is like that encourages such harassment/misogyny (we had something like this before but not directly connected to GG). There is another point she makes that is new but that I think we need to tread carefully in that she (or the interviewer) considers in broad terms that the events from Gjoni's post to the harassment as equivalent to "domestic abuse". We have to be careful here because if this statement is implying that Gjoni engaged in that, that's a BLP violation. I read that she's speaking to the broader situation but the way that section is worded (by the journalist, not Sarkeesian), it could be implied that Gjoni's being lumped into that too. Hence I would be very very cautious to include that. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I think Sarkeesian's opinion that the harassment is equivalent to domestic abuse is appropriate to include (just as we have attributed to others that claim the situation is like terrorism) as long as we're not engaging into BLP towards Gjoni with her opinion. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's one where I agree with you. I also read the statements about Gjoni as by the journalist rather than Sarkeesian, but it's uncomfortably close to statements from Sarkeesian that I feel it's best to leave that part out. Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

NO: To clarify, Sarkeesian does not opine that the harassment is equivalent to domestic abuse. We cannot say that, because she does not say that. The article is perfectly clear:

She is frustrated by the way GamerGate has been covered in the media. “All the stories kept decentring the fact that it was domestic violence,” she says. Indeed, the movement was born when a 25-year-old software developer named Eron Gjoni posted a 10,000-word blog about his ex-girlfriend, video game designer Zoe Quinn. In the blog, he recounted the minutiae of their relationship and outlined her supposed wrongdoings and infidelities. Quinn has said, “It is domestic abuse that went viral, and it was designed to go viral.” (Gjoni linked to the blogpost in forums such as 4chan, well known for vicious online harassment.)"

The opinion is Zoe Quinn’s, which Sarkeesian is citing and with which she is agreeing, and the opinion does not concern equivalence at all. What this passage says (and what is undoubtedly the case) is that the harassment of Quinn, and thus the Gamergate controversy, begins with an episode of domestic abuse in which a rejected ex-lover recounted intimate details of a former girlfriend in public. This isn't saying that harassment is equivalent to abuse, it is saying that this campaign of harassment literally begins with a domestic dispute.

With respect to M____'s concerns about BLP, Sarkeesian clearly writes within the feminist tradition that holds the use of violent language and intimidation to constitute violence, and therefore that GJoni’s letter is ipso facto a violence done to its victim. No one is saying that Gjoni hit Quinn, but Sarkeesian is saying that his words were intended as blows and should be understood as such. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Since domestic violence or abuse is a crime, it is a BLP to state this (that was Gjoni did was domestic abuse) as a fact. Gjoni hasn't been charged for any crime (much less found guilty of it) so BLP says we can't repeat it here. And as for the nature of this article, the byline which reads "The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse" which appears to be a quote from Sarkeesian (even though its not repeated in the body) makes it seem like Sarkeesian is agreeing that GG harassment is like domestic abuse. However as I noted this could be the implication that the interview wants to carry the way the article is phrased. Either way, the connected with the statement to Gjoni makes it a subject to careful tread on BLP aspects around, and because of how poorly the difference is made in the article, its a topic we should avoid if the separation of events cannot be made to remove the BLP. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that physical abuse is the only form of abuse that exists. It is not. Artw (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also add that threats that Quinn has received as a result of Gjoni's actions go up to and included threats of rape and murder. Artw (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If the article was clear that Quinn or Sarkeesian compared the harassment and threats equivalent to domestic abuse (and yes, I agree this can be simply verbal/psychological aspects) and made no potential ties to Gjoni, then including that opinion would not be a BLP violation, since BLP does not protect anonymous groups like that. That's why the claim about GG being like terrorism is fine since there's no named individuals. But the way the article is written, it begs the question if Gjoni did any type of domestic abuse towards Quinn, which creates a BLP violation if there's no clear evidence (in this case, a legal decision) has been given. Maybe the intent wasn't there when Quinn stated it or when Sarkeesian agreed with that, but the end result of that article is that Gjoni's association in that statement is problematic and thus should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The word "byline" does not mean what M______ thinks it means; a byline is not a subtitle. The phrase "begs the question" does not mean what M_____ seems to imagine it means, either. The allegation that the Zoepost was an instance of domestic abuse was made by Zoe Quinn in the Boston Magazine article, which is cited in this article to clarify Sarkeesian’s quotation which paraphrases it. Numerous sources report that Quinn lodged an action against Gjoni in the wake of the Zoepost, and that she obtained injunctive relief. Moreover, not every act of what feminists call "domestic abuse" is currently considered to be criminal in the US; indeed, not long ago, domestic rape was not a crime (cf. The_Forsyte_Saga).

It is striking, is it not, how some editors insist that oft-repeated allegations against Gjoni which are the subject of an ongoing legal action must not be mentioned here even when they are prominently discussed in major magazines and newspapers, but that insinuations about Gjoni’s former girlfriend, begun by Gjoni to punish her for leaving him and now sourced to unspecified "right wing papers" or to the writer’s personal knowledge, are entirely consistent with BLPTALK. That many Wikipedians continue to condone this appalling and shameful double standard remains troubling. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have only seen two articles that even talk about any potential issues of Gjoni's relationship with Quinn prior to the Gjoni post (this and Boston Mag's), and that's not enough discussion nor evidence provided to state that Gjoni engaged in domestic abuse against Quinn to any degree (even as a claim by Quinn) without violating BLP. Discussing all this is also within the allowances of discussion on BLPTALK as no editor is creating this accusation but instead what a source has claimed. As long as the claim started from an RS, there is no issue in talking about whether the claim should be included under BLPTALK. That's as simple as it is, there is no double standard here. And for the last time stop personally attacking and harassing me. Don't talk about editors. Talk about content. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Masem said about the domestic abuse thing in the article being innapropriate. However I do think there are some BLPTALK issues which I'm going to query on his talk page as its not related to this section. I'm removing the claims for BLP reasons (1rr exempt). On a side note the bit about domestic abuse isn't as focused on why the ethics claims are kinda dumb, as the other part quoted by Sarkeesian. Brustopher (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No one (except possibly M___) is talking about what M____ so concisely describes as "any potential issues of Gjoni's relationship with Quinn prior to the Gjoni post". No one (except possibly M___ -- who could know?) is discussing whether or not Gjoni beat his girlfriend, or if his girlfriend beat him. The issue which Quinn raises in Boston Magazine, and to which Sarkeesian alludes in The Guardian, is that the ZoePost is itself a heinous act of domestic abuse; a man, perceiving himself to have been rejected by his now-former lover, exacts revenge by publishing a long and rambling letter detailing their intimate secrets and excoriating his former beloved for what he considers to be her indiscretions in what he patently confesses to be an act of revenge. Quinn regards this as "domestic abuse", Sarkeesian as "domestic violence": the violence Sarkeesian alludes to he metaphoric, threatened, or emotional. That it is necessary to explain this to adults -- much less adults who purport to be competent to edit an encyclopedia, beggars belief. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SPJ Airplay

Just curious to know if this article will be updated to cover [SPJ Airplay]. I realise that this is a sensitive subject, but at the moment, the article tells only one side of a fairly controversial subject. The fact that the Airplay consisted entirely of discussions about Journalistic Ethics, and contained no harassment at all should at least persuade moderators that this article doesn't fairly describe Gamergate. Rocketmagnet (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When reliable secondary sources cover it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Now covered by Reason (magazine) [12]. To note it is by Cathy Young who was in attendance at Airplay. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC previous articles by Carhy Young in Reason on the subject of Gamergate have been rejected for inclusion here (material removed by The Devil's Advocate due to BLP concerns), probably a bad move to use her as a source here. Artw (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in the archives to this; only that there was a push to remove her stuff because it was weak and likely counter to the desired view here. --MASEM (t) 06:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey! WP:AGF. Anyway, my issue is that we already cite her for a few other things, and her viewpoint (and the viewpoint of Reason (magazine)) is comparatively fringe / non-mainstream, so I'd worry about giving her opinions and focuses WP:UNDUE weight. We can't repeatedly cite one journalist from an outlet like that without risking giving too much weight to a comparatively fringe-y interpretation of events; this extends to coverage from there being worth less in terms of determining relative weight and inclusion than, say, the New York Times or the BBC. The article is already excessively-long, so I don't think we can throw in a random journalism event on it just because one libertarian outlet mentioned it; nor do I think (based on current limited coverage, anyway) that covering it would really help understand the subject. We can wait a bit and see if it has a significant impact on how the topic is seen and covered in higher-profile sources, then come back and cover it later if it is; there's no need to succumb to WP:RECENTISM. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion and Masem: We only use Young twice in the article now, so I'm not too worried about undue weight. However this is a primary source, as Young was a panellist at the event, I think we need some secondary sources for any analysis of the event. At the moment the only thing that seems to have shown up in secondary sources was the bomb threats. — Strongjam (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't come as much of a surprise that people on a panel intended to discuss ethics in journalism, at an event about ethics in journalism, run by a group focused on - surprisingly - ethics in journalism, ended up discussing ethics in journalism. None of which is indicative of anything special, and doesn't reveal any more about GamerGate than telling us that some members (if we ignore the interrupted afternoon session) can stick to a topic. But although it doesn't really say much about GamerGate, I would like to see some mention that the event occurred, (beyond the bomb threats) as it was significant within the wider discussion. What I don't know is where to put acknowledgement that it took place. Maybe under "Debate over ethics allegations"? - Bilby (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

To note, the UPI article on the bomb threat [13] does also go into the reasons there was this Airplay panel in the first place, so the reasons for the panel can be sourced better. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought, too. Use the existing source to acknowledge that Airplay occurred beyond the bomb threat. - Bilby (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps under the "public perception" then. "Supporters of the movement, including (list), were able to present arguments at the SPJ AirPlay event in August 2015, describing how they believed that media coverage of Gamergate has been biased." --MASEM (t) 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Except almost no one agrees with the 8chan/reddit boards that the abortive SPJ panel was significant, and it received scant coverage. At the same time, the Hugo debacle received a good deal of coverage, much of which explicitly identified the slate voters as Gamergate supporters who were being repudiated by the WorldCon membership. Oddly, reddit and Twitter are all aflutter over SJP in Wikipedia, with nary a word about the much more significant coverage of the Hugo Awards. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We have no idea if anyone agrees because it has received scant coverage so we don't know what the mass media thinks. We know there are other off-center works that think it was significant because , to them, it puts forward that the media have skewed the perception of GG. Additionally, this article is not the place for the situation with the Hugos beyond the purported connection of the "puppies" groups to GG. Instead, that is properly covered at Hugo Award#Since 2000 including the strong reaction to the net result there. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I watched the whole thing. Everyone involved in this article should watch it objectively and realize that it's very reasonable to treat sources that rely on or are in themselves party to this dispute very likely have gotten this story fundamentally wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Debate of Ethics Allegations

Currently, the first line of this section reads:

Academic researchers at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University described Gamergate as a "vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morph[ed] into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism", noting that it involved considerable abuse and harassment of female developers and game critics.

My concern is that this feels like an attempt to drop a second claim into the first line which isn't needed. The original source makes two claims:

"The post provokes a vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morphs into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism."

And:

"The movement ... involves considerable abuse and harassment—including rape and death threats—of female developers and game critics."

These are relevant claims. However, in discussing the claims about ethics, only the first is significant. Adding the second feels like an attempt to continue with a particular narrative, not related to the issue being discussed at that point. At the moment, almost two thirds of this article discusses the harassment issue. It isn't being ignored. I'd like to trim the line to only focus on the main issue being examined, to make it read:

Academic researchers at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University described Gamergate as a "vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morph[ed] into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism."

That it also involves harassment is significant, but not in the lead of the ethics discussion. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, On balance, I am inclined to agree with your assessment. Seems like a case of the WP:HOWEVERs as used in this section. If desired, the source could be used in multiple places, covering each aspect as appropriate. If the source is accurately summarised as supporting both aspects, I would find concerns of WP:CHERRYPICK compelling if we were to only document one of those. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy to see the source used to support the presence of harassment in the movement in the article. My problem is with the placement, rather than its use. - Bilby (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the source, I would suggest that a) the in-text attribution needs improvement/clarification, specifically to mention the authors & publication/periodical; b) the source is a digest of other sources, without transformation, all of which we include already. Editors & readers may be inclined to concern that it is only included to provide a veneer of academic respectability. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My concern is with providing the description of 'crusade against alleged corruption' without including the full, more illuminating description the source gives. That is- one without the other is a bit misleading as to the source's intention when describing it. (It also flows a little better into '...contend that their actions...') PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

While I agree about keeping the two parts of that statement together, there is an issue that we're leading the section we're talking (to some degree) in the pro-GG with a highly negative statement about GG. This statement should be included, but after we have presented the GG side or where we discuss where sources dismiss the ethics claims. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have three concerns with it as it stands. First, it reads like two separate claims. "GG morphed into an issue about ethics" and "GG involves harassment and threats towards women". Both are true, but they aren't necessarily connected. If that's the case we can treat them as two separate claims, quote one in the ethics section, and the other in the harassment section, and we won't be doing a disservice to the first claim by not mentioning the other. Alternatively, if they are intrinsically connected, then I agree with Masem that they don't make a good led sentence. The lead sentence should define the issue, not evaluate it. So a simple statement that GG claims to be concerned about ethics is sufficient. Finally, I need to take Ryk72's point into account. This is not academic investigation into GG, but a summary of a piece by Kaplan. We'd be better off using Kaplan directly (as we do), than presenting this as an academic finding. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no "GG side"; Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources report, which is what Gamergate demonstrably has done. The difficulty with the first Berkmann claim is that (a) it's not clear how the "vitriolic campaign against Quinn" morphed, or in fact that it did morph, (b) it is not clear what a campaign against perceived (imaginary) violations of ethics in journalism has to do with Quinn, and (c) it is easily demonstrated that the harassment of Quinn continued and persists, while the supposed “crusade” against “alleged corruption” is very hard to see, since it appears almost exclusively to deflect attention to the criminal conspiracy against Quinn. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a GG side, many many RSes have said this exists; they question the validity of their claims to be about ethics, but is not saying it doesn't exist. If there is no other side, then there is no controversy, and that begs why there is even 200+ sources and this article. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be cautious about dividing the topic up into clear sides. Most of the sources that go into depth on its character tend to agree that it isn't easy to define; and there's broad agreement that many people involved in the controversy have different goals (conservatives pundits exploiting it for their own ends, culture warriors determined to strike a blow against what they consider their ideological enemies, trolls who simply enjoy the excuse to harass people and so on.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that it would be silly to try and paraphrase or quote the first sentence without covering the sentence immediately after it; in context, the two sentences clearly convey an overall commentary on the nature, character, and practical results of the "crusade against alleged corruption." The real problem comes from the fact that it was dropped at the top of the section (above the introduction), which both gave that source undue weight and which left it without any real broader context. Dropping it down to the second paragraph puts it clearly in the context of numerous other commentators who have discussed the topic in the same way. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removing "which involved considerable abuse and harassment of female developers and game critics" from that section. It's wrong to turn every section into a summary of the whole topic (or to call it a spade, it's wrong that sections that aren't about abuse seemingly must contain "but the real point/effect/outcome was abuse"). Gronky (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Mary Sue should probably not be cited as a reliable source

I've beaten around this bush already, but I'm going to go out and cite this recent article as a bit of evidence that The Mary Sue is probably not the most reliable of sources. Just call it a hunch but frankly if this source were to pop up in a GAN or even FAN on a character article I'd be questioning the hell out of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I'm missing something. How does that article indicate unreliability? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps you can be more specific? — Strongjam (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well there's the fact nowhere in the article does it state this is the author's opinion. Even on services like Gawker that run such stories, they are presented with that disclaimer. Instead the title is literally saying "this is fact", when the entirety of the research here is based on synthesis and *one line*, and it's being promoted by TMS in it's header. I think at the very least that should raise some flags for some folks as to just how reliable a source this website is and suggest further looking into before we cite them, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're really reaching here.--Jorm (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, with all due respect: no. Dumuzid (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So you would cite this as a viable source for Samus Aran?

Yes, I am openly questioning the editorial process of this website and stating it appears more as an opinion blog than a reliable source for wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As Jorm said, seems like a reach. From the last paragraph of the article, "That there’s been so much discussion around a throwaway quote in a Metroid strategy guide shows how desperate LGBTQ gamers are to find faces and stories like their own in games." The point of the article is not "Samus is a transgender woman", but that LGBTQ gamers are desperate for representation in video games. — Strongjam (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, assuming you could overcome WP:UNDUE (this one article is not enough I think,) then, yeah, it could be a potential source. Although attribution would be required as the source itself says this is a contentious claim. — Strongjam (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam, in all honesty are we outright ignoring the fact the article's title is stating "Samus is a transgender woman", and telling us to "deal with it"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Again I need to bring up, what proof of any editorial oversight is there on this website? Because I am finding none other than a list of staff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RSN is probably a better place to take this. — Strongjam (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair point, I'll pursue this there then.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in this article that raises any question about the editorial process of The Mary Sue. A writer interviews artists and writers about the background of a character, and they respond with useful quotations. The publication has editors, assistant editors and a publisher. This argument is frivolous and a waste of the project’s time. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't you say the same about the Spiked (magazine) article? "We have nothing that raises any question about the editorial process of Spiked. A writer interviews three women involved – a developer, a hobbyist and a journalist, and they respond with useful information. The publication has editors, assistant editors, and a publisher. Mark Bernstein's argument is frivolous and a waste of the project's time."

We should get used to the fact that, more and more in the available WP:RSes, the scales are tipping in the #Gamergate controversy to a two-sided story which is not only about that but also about "a consumer revolt against misconduct in the video-games press"; "game reviewers more interested in logrolling than in producing honest reviews" and ideologues interested in imposing a radical political narrative on a hobby that wants none of it. To maintain a NPOV, we have to make a good-faith effort to tell that side of the story as well, not just this one. Chrisrus (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That’s a dandy WP:SOAPBOX you're on there! With regard to your question about Spiked, they write that “Spiked has an open door policy" which suggests an unconventional editorial policy but may simply reflect a willingness to receive unagented submissions. It is clear that Spiked is a partisan magazine -- it grew out of Living Marxism -- which may limit its reliability, especially as to WP:UNDUE and its concerns. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Berstein for the love of pete please assume good faith and cease with the personal attacks.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh? There's no personal attack. That particular post (which was a personal attack, on me, incidentally) was also a a coatrack soapbox of speculation about future trends in the media and the impact those trends might someday have on this topic; I gently and succinctly reminded everyone that this isn't the place for that. Nothing I wrote (as opposed to what was written about me) can conceivably be construed as referring to good faith, bad faith, or the Catholic faith: do you love St. Peter, Kung Fu Man? I’m pretty sure there's a policy against spurious complaints, but if you do have a complaint to make, WP:AE is thataway ⇒. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions about Spiked and Mary Sue being reliable are far more likely to gain a conclusive answer at WP:RSN. After all they've been disputed here countless times with no conclusive answer.Brustopher (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll just note that this is currently being discussed on a certain subreddit, so we should probably just wait for their decision. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait Dumuzid, which reddit are you referring to? I'd like to see this in person if possible.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, I don't think it's worth prolonging my moment of pique here, so I'll contact you directly. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(refactored) Previous (non-admin closure) self-revert per the request implicit in the comment below. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

First, sorry, this was done too fast for me; I have a job and other responsibilities and you move too fast for me, and I would like my chance to reply.

Second, it is not appropriate to describe a plea for neutral point of view in an article and clear bias in evaluation of WP:RSes as WP:SOAPBOX.

Third, it's not clear how not needing a literary agent to submit to Spiked (magazine) means this article was so submitted or that the magazine or article is therefore not reliable.

Fourth, on the other hand, the Mary Sue is owned by the notorious Gawker, which also owns Kotaku, which is a party to this dispute, and as such cannot be considered objective.

Fifth, pointing out that an argument made against Spiked could be also made against the Mary Sue is not a "personal attack".

In order to maintain a neutral point of view, we should be clear when a source is or relies entirely on a party to the dispute in this article, and be sure to make a good faith effort to seek out and incorporate the other side from other sources as they are now increasingly becoming available from left- and right-leaning publications and not dismiss them because they are left- or right-leaning. Chrisrus (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh, The Mary Sue is not owned by Gawker. Woodroar (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

For the curious Abrams Media, founded and run by Dan Abrams, owns The Mary Sue — Strongjam (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I was thinking about Jezebel. We should have a list of sources that are a party to the dispute. Chrisrus (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Restating what I said about Spiked: the site says they have an "open door policy" for content. This could mean that they disclaim editorial control responsibility as a common carrier/public utility. It could also mean "we accept unagented submissions." It’s unusual language; without additional information, we don’t know what their editorial practice is. Note that some, perhaps all, of the names on the masthead hold positions at other publications; again, it's hard to know how to interpret this. I agree with others that (a) this isn't the right forum for this discussion, (b) The Mary Sue is not and never was owned by Gawker, and (c) it's time to close this and move on. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Singal

Can someone take a look at this bit In The Boston Globe, Jesse Singal noted that Gamergate seems to have been especially concerned to harass professional women it believes to be sexually active. I checked the cited source and I'm not seeing it. I'd remove it but I've already reverted today. — Strongjam (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Does it technically count as a revert? Either way I couldn't find this in the source either, so I removed it. Also it seems to be saying pretty similar stuff to Singal's other article so I'm not sure if there's much worth using here. Brustopher (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I considered invoking BLP-exception but I'm not that brave. — Strongjam (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hugo awards and diversity.

Almost all coverage currently cited says that the Sad Puppies were a backlash against increasing diversity (note that this is not quite the same as 'opposing diversity', hence the careful wording.) Cites:

• the Hugo Awards Won't Stifle Diversity in Science Fiction. "The prizes have been targeted by voting blocks opposed to progressive efforts to recognize more women and writers of color. But trying to undo change in an increasingly diverse world is futile." "Why should it matter that there was a block vote led in large part by a group whose most vociferous leader wants to disenfranchise entire groups of people?"
• Puppies' campaign fails to undermine sci-fi diversity at the Hugo Awards "This year's awards nomination and voting process had been roiled by controversy due to a campaign by two groups calling themselves the "Sad Puppies" and the "Rabid Puppies" that have objected to racial, ethnic and gender diversity in science fiction."
• Who Won Science Fiction’s Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters "But in recent years, as sci-fi has expanded to include storytellers who are women, gays and lesbians, and people of color, the Hugos have changed, too. At the presentation each August, the Gods with the rockets in their hands have been joined by Goddesses and those of other ethnicities and genders and sexual orientations, many of whom want to tell stories about more than just spaceships. Early this year, that shift sparked a backlash: a campaign, organized by three white, male authors, that resulted in a final Hugo ballot dominated by mostly white, mostly male nominees"

Since this is the overwhelming tone of coverage, it needs to be the lead-in to the paragraph. Virtually all sources agree that the Sad Puppies were a reaction to the increasing diversity of sci-fi. To an extent, even the Sad Puppies themselves agree; they simply say that the increased diversity is happening for the wrong reasons and that they oppose that. But that's more a difference of how they characterize their concerns than a difference in substance. In any case, we need to reflect the consensus of reliable sources, not just what they say about themselves, so the overarching thrust of discussion on the topic needs to lead with the fact that it was a backlash against the increasing diversity in sci-fi. (I'll point out as an aside that it was moved to the end, away from the citations that supported it, then slapped with cite tags. Please be more careful with things like that! It has extensive citations.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, this entry is not the one to burden with such a large paragraph - Hugo Awards is. A concise summary is appropriate here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Rabid Puppies may be more important here than Sad Puppies. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Article contains nothing from Milo Yiannopoulos and Christina Hoff Sommers!?

I just can't square this article up with what I read and hear off-Wikipedia.

I'm not into gaming, but I sometimes listen to people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Christina Hoff Sommers, and Gamergate is something they talk about, and then I come to Wikipedia and I find no mention of what they say, and instead I find an article which keeps boiling the topic down to being about threats of violence against women.

Yes, I saw their names got mentioned. There's one mention of a bomb threat being made at an event they both organised, and another mention of Milo being the person who published some leaked discussions. That's all. Apparently they play a non-speaking bit-part in this story. Nothing about their commentary or explanations or what they called for or why people would attend their event.

As I said before, I don't know this topic, and I'm such a fan of Wikipedia that I always give it the benefit of the doubt, but every time I come back to this article, as a reader I just feel I'm being taken for a fool. It's partly because the content doesn't match what I read off-Wikipedia, and partly the way the article is written with every non-abuse paragraph having a "but it's mostly about abuse" comment somewhere, and every person who talks about something other than abuse gets labelled as a "conspiracy theorist" or similar (despite using the same logic as the other side, which never gets called that name or any other name).

I wouldn't know where to start in fixing it. I do know I'd get reverted and would spend days trying to keep up with the flood of discussion here. Maybe there are two controversies? And the article should document one, then the other? But the main point of my comment is: Readers can tell they're being spun a story, so you're making Wikipedia look bad. Wikipedia deserves better. Please rethink how this article covers the topic. Gronky (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it perhaps worth adding a section called "Gamergate supporters," detailing the different groups within Gamergate? Brustopher (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, "I know this source talks a lot about this topic" does not mean said source is worthy of, or much less, demands inclusion. Contributions from the commentators you mention may merit being part of the article, but it's tough to say in the abstract. I know that on occasion it happens for me that the aggregate of the reliable sources reaches a conclusion which does not accord with my experience. If you have specific suggestions to make, I know I am all ears. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but Milo is on national television talking about it, probably in multiple countries. And Sommers, I think I heard, is a professor who travels quite a lot talking about this and other things. So first, it sounds like they're pretty prominent. And second, I can't see why a feminist professor would get behind a movement that was, as this article claims, mostly about threatening women.

Specific suggestions? I have none. I'm just hoping to lay bare that this article increasingly seems to me to be a farce, and instead of fooling people it's probably just making Wikipedia look bad. Gronky (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If the aggregate of reliable sources makes Wikipedia look bad, than the issue is with Wikipedia policy rather than this article, I should think. But I am often wrong. Dumuzid (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

But it seems to me that this article isn't an aggregate of reliable sources. When I'm on Wikipedia, I read that Gamergate is about rape threats and misogyny, but once I leave Wikipedia I hear a complete other story. I happened to read about the Hugo science fiction awards today. Here's the first reference to "gamergate" in each of the first six articles that I find when I search Google News for hugo awards gamergate:

(The links and quotes are provided in case anyone wants to check, but I summarise just afterward)

• Akin to Gamergate, the Puppies refute the notion that their anti-diversification stance is rooted in bigotry: They just care about storytelling.
• Among the reasons for this: women, the LGBT community and a rainbow of human ethnicities are ascendent in sci-fi/fantasy culture. Propelling this tendency forward, Gamergate as well recent events at the yearly Hugo Awards gathering indicate that change is in the air.
• he’s a video game designer and early proponent of Gamergate, which, he argues, resembles Sad Puppies in that “both groups are striking back against the left-wing control freaks who have subjected science fiction to ideological control for two decades and are now attempting to do the same thing in the game industry.
• The very short version for anyone blessed enough to have missed GamerGate completely is boys don’t like girls anywhere near their video games (never mind that a huge proportion of gamers are female) and the very suggestion that the gaming industry has an issue with the way it depicts women and other minorities is grounds for rape and death threats.
• has just released an ebook on how to fight back against the SJWs, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police. ... and ends with an up-to-the-minute report on GamerGate and the Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies campaign over the 2015 science-fiction Hugo awards.
• a few obsessive writers/publishers who believe that science fiction should be limited to tales of heroic males blowing up planets or dragons or something have gamed the award nominating system to combat the pernicious effect of women, minorities and/or interesting plots on the minds of innocent sci-fi readers. It's being compared to Gamergate

So, of the first 6 hits, number 4 links gamergate to rape threats, and number 6 links it to excluding women and non-whites. Not sure what number 2 infers about gamergate. Numbers 1, 3, and 5 are about gamergate pushing back against "left-wing ideological control", "Thought Police", and focus on "storytelling".

But when I read Wikipedia, Gamergate is all about rape threats and about how, while some people say they're pushing back against censorship, no one is fooled, we all know those people are covering up their misogyny and racism.

I'm really lost for how to fix this article. I don't think I've ever seen a Wikipedia article get so wrong.

As I keep saying, I'm far from an expert on this topic, but I'm getting the impression that gamergate is two topics, and Wikipedia is portraying both topics as being part of just one of those topics. Gronky (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you've given an excellent example of precisely why Wikipedia sticks to the RS; you and I can leave here and have completely different subjective experiences of what is "true" (hence WP:TRUE). Also, a search for gamergate and the hugo awards is some evidence, and useful, but it is culling a particular substrate of gamergate news, and not necessarily representative of the whole. I read the sources a bit differently as well. In the slate piece, a quote from Vox Day is not necessarily the take of the article. Similarly, the Vulture piece gives the "Puppies" stance without necessarily endorsing it. That people may have different motives (whether consciously or not) than those they espouse is unsurprising. Again, if you have suggestions, or want to draft an entirely new article, I think we'd all appreciate it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I picked the Google News approach to try to avoid my biased browsing. And from each link, I picked the first use of "gamergate" so that I could quote the text and again avoid my subjective influence. (Actually for one or two links I had to skip the very first use of "gamergate" because the sentence clearly implied nothing.)

As I've learned, trying to improve this article by editing it would be a full-time job. So I hope I can help a portion of the frequent editors to realise/agree the article is a mis-portrayal of the topic and that a lot of readers surely know it's biased, so it's just harming Wikipedia's image. Gronky (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an article exists that isn't harming Wikipedia's image to someone, somewhere. But best of luck with your efforts. Dumuzid (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixing this article will need all the luck we can get. Gronky (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Other suggestion that gamergate isn't as rape-threat-focussed as this article claims:

• Google News: Hugo Awards Gamergate

If Gamergate is mostly about threatening women, then how are journalists connecting the Hugo Award voting bloc campaign with Gamergate? Gronky (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Shorter: FRINGE ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

EA's Peter Moore on Gamergate from Fortune

• Gaudiosi, John (September 4, 2015). "Electronic Arts' biggest games are being helmed by female developers". Fortune. ISSN 0015-8259.

Peter Moore talking about how Gamergate has put a focus on diversity in hiring, and the opportunities they create internally. Could be useful in the "Gaming industry response" section, maybe in conjunction with Intel's "Diversity in Technology" program. Any thoughts? — Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added a bit from this to the article. — Strongjam (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

DiGRA

I'm considering removing the DiGRA paragraph in Debate_over_ethics_allegations. All sources used in the paragraph with the exception of Inside Higher Ed are just DiGRA members rebutting the accusations. Unless anyone can find any additional sources it seems undue to keep it.Brustopher (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Booo, I like that paragraph. It's good old-fashioned DARPA conspiracy theories. You are right though. One of those things that at the time seemed relevant, but in retrospect it did not end up being very big piece of the picture. — Strongjam (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well there was no objections so I went ahead and removed it. Ping if anyone wants me to revert. — Strongjam (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disclosing a draft I'm working on

It's at User:Brustopher/GGAcademia. I don't want it to appear like I'm covertly up to no good, which is why I'm linking to it here. Brustopher (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your subversive tendencies have been noted and will be reported (thanks for the effort!). Dumuzid (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Cutting down

Hey. I'm going to be attempting to reduce or remove our coverage of stuff that in retrospect wasn't a noteworthy part of the now mostly dead Gamergate thing. Just thought I'd post here so any concerned have a tidy place to yell at me when I screw up. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for cutting.

• Targeting advertisers section the last paragraph about use of archive sites. Only one source for it, ands it is from the publication that is targeted by the use of archive sites. No secondary coverage that I can see.
• Gaming industry response section, the paragraph about updating of polices. Our sources are the sites themselves that update their policies, no secondary coverage for why that is notable.
• Gamergate activities section, the bit about the Ph.D student referring to Gamergate as "Deatheaters", only covered by the one source, doesn't seem to have picked up any wider coverage.

- Strongjam (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the above points:

• Targeting advertisersAgree that it's undue. Removing
• Gaming industry responseAdded secondary coverage for Kotaku and Polygon updates. The Escapist update was tangentially mentioned in the Tsukuyama article but I don't think that's enough to warrant inclusion and I've removed it.
• Gamergate activities I've found a second source regarding the death eater thingy, but I'm not sure if it counts as reliable or if the current coverage to space-in-the-article ratio is appropriate. Thoughts?

Brustopher (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I cut down on the Death Eater thing some more. As sickening as it is, 'person threatened with death by gamergate supporters' isn't notable at this point due to how generous they've been with their harassment. That the organisation was asking attendees to not use the term to avoid this was more notable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Generous"? God that sounds morbid. GamerPro64 00:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It truly is disgusting the horrid depths they've sunk to. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the Kotaku and Polygon updates regarding Patreon are noteworthy today, even with the additional sources. One mention is an opinion piece, and both are just one sentence in passing; I don't think one non-opinion reference really enough to show that they're significant. --Aquillion (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's significant that gaming journalism outlets raised their standards to be at the minimum acceptable level of professional conduct as a direct result of GamerGate. Yes, it's arguable about which is more notable: the appalling lack of a standard prior to GGC or the addition of minimal standards after. We don't have to cover both, though. One of those angles is sufficient. --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

By my reading, none of the aspects you're asserting are in the sources. All they say is that they tweaked their policies in response to the attacks against them. In fact, all sources that talk about the ethics charges that led to those changes say that they were trivial or unfounded (that is, that donating to Patreon does not raise ethical issues.) In fact, the reasoning you're giving here seems like another reason to remove them, since you're implying a WP:SYNTH reading where you want to use the fact that they changed their policies as proof of wrongdoing; given that no reliable source asserts that, and given that there is virtually no coverage of the changes, I don't think that there's any reason to think that they're as important as you claim or that they are worth focusing on in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Found a third source covering the ethics policy changes. [14]Brustopher (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Found a source covering the escapist changes. Not sure if it's enough.[15] Brustopher (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Minor inaccuracy in the Hugo Awards para

The paragraph currently says that none of the works nominated by the Sad or Rabid Puppies won the Hugo, but there was one of their nominees that won - Guardians of the Galaxy won for Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form. Kelly ^hi! 10:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to changing the text to reflect this? Kelly ^hi! 23:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Already have[16] Brustopher (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

For the Hugo Awards, it seems that it's only relevance is its relationship to the culture war aspect og the GamerGate controversy. We seem to only cover this aspect as a conspiracy theory. It seems a large number of categories were "No Award." Were there no non-puppy candidates in these categories good enough to make the ballot or did non-puppy voters choose "No Award" over a fear of vote splitting? --DHeyward (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The puppies' use of slates magnified their voting power to a sufficient extent that in those categories all five candidates were puppies. According to this listing, with the exception of the dramatic presentation categories (including Guardians of the Galaxy), "no award" came out ahead of all puppy candidates and behind all non-puppy candidates. I don't know what you mean about vote splitting; the award voting uses the single transferable vote system under which splitting is a non-issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)