Template:Did you know nominations/The Fine Young Capitalists
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Zoe Quinn still seems to be a raw nerve around here, and so it should be. Article meets all the DYK criteria.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Fine Young Capitalists
[edit]- ... that The Fine Young Capitalists produced a series of videos about the achievements of female game developers at the request of 4chan members?
- Reviewed: Venetia James
Created by The Devil's Advocate (talk). Self nominated at 04:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
What started as a simple DYK review is getting progressively more complicated... Okay, first, the article is new (16th), long enough, no copyvio found via spot check, QPQ done. The lede was relatively non-neutral ("embroiled", "unfairly criticized", "her associates")—I attempted to rephrase. This sentence is snaky: "TFYC attempted to launch the women-only game jam early in 2014 when it became the subject of criticism on social media after Quinn learned of the project." and should be rephrased. Many of these sentences are controversial, and all sentences that are likely to be challenged should have immediate citations per WP:MINREF. (E.g., "She accused the project of being exploitative towards women and transphobic.") The article is passably neutral (especially for a controversial topic), but the extra refs would help. Additionally, lines like "Media suggested the hacking incident could have been retaliation from critics of TFYC for alleged hacking incidents targeting Quinn and her supporters" are not a reflection of the sources, where I couldn't find where the media suggested such a connection. This is non-neutral. Also never resolved is the group's intentions vis-à-vis 4chan, which is really murky from my read of this article (not addressed until the last line of the article, but even then it's one-sided). Has there been nothing published that discusses the connection? And it's okay to wikilink Quinn (and anything else) once in the lede and once in the rest of the article. Now the hook: it's sourced, but it doesn't confirm that a series has been made (just a single video). The article and hook should be updated accordingly. APGNation's reliability is up for discussion at WT:VG/RS#APGNation, where it doesn't look good. (Gameranx and Crowdfund Insider have similar reliability issues, though more the latter than the former.) This said, interviews are generally allowed as long as their content is unlikely to be fudged. (Still, I didn't see a mention of five videos or a series there, but perhaps point it out for me?) Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ♔ 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't object to your changes to the lede, though I feel you were wrong to characterize it as non-neutral. All the claims are backed by reliable citations, but I have done a little reshuffling to make this clearer. On the videos the interview states "Because 4chan raised so much money we wanted to reward them. So we asked them what they’d like our next video to be about. They said female developers and as such we’ve covered three female developers and will probably cover at least 2 more by the end of the contest." Gameranx and Crowdfund Insider are not being used on their own for anything contentious and APG is being used legitimately as a primary source. Not sure what you mean by "snaky" or if you meant to use a different word.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I said that the lede was "relatively non-neutral" with the qualifier because I didn't think it was explicitly non-neutral. It's a tricky subject anyway. Snaky as in snakelike, "long and sinuous". Do you have any thoughts on the rest of the things I said, or working on it? Is there any secondary source that actually makes the hook's claim, or is the interview+Daily Dot the best available? czar ♔ 22:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I copy-edited the "snaky" sentence. So, are you saying the interview in conjunction with the Daily Dot is insufficient? They can reasonably be taken as reliable on whether they produced more than one video in that vein and there is no requirement that the hook be entirely backed by secondary sources. I don't think there are are really any more claims that need addressing under DYK standards, even many of the things I have addressed are not really necessary to meet DYK standards. Seems to me that you scrutinizing the article more than necessary.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- DD+interview is okay/sufficient—I asked because it isn't ideal (secondary sourcing always preferred to self-published sources, etc., especially for claims that could be challenged). Neutrality is part of the DYK criteria, so I think it'd be appropriate to answer my good faith questions about article balance and neutrality. Doesn't have to be a long response, but I wouldn't have asked if I felt it wouldn't have made a difference czar ♔ 23:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure what neutrality issue you would consider to be unresolved at the moment. You made an objection about citations, but I felt I addressed that in a subsequent edit to the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- DD+interview is okay/sufficient—I asked because it isn't ideal (secondary sourcing always preferred to self-published sources, etc., especially for claims that could be challenged). Neutrality is part of the DYK criteria, so I think it'd be appropriate to answer my good faith questions about article balance and neutrality. Doesn't have to be a long response, but I wouldn't have asked if I felt it wouldn't have made a difference czar ♔ 23:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I copy-edited the "snaky" sentence. So, are you saying the interview in conjunction with the Daily Dot is insufficient? They can reasonably be taken as reliable on whether they produced more than one video in that vein and there is no requirement that the hook be entirely backed by secondary sources. I don't think there are are really any more claims that need addressing under DYK standards, even many of the things I have addressed are not really necessary to meet DYK standards. Seems to me that you scrutinizing the article more than necessary.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I said that the lede was "relatively non-neutral" with the qualifier because I didn't think it was explicitly non-neutral. It's a tricky subject anyway. Snaky as in snakelike, "long and sinuous". Do you have any thoughts on the rest of the things I said, or working on it? Is there any secondary source that actually makes the hook's claim, or is the interview+Daily Dot the best available? czar ♔ 22:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring to
I ran into this earlier in the week, which has a really useful blurb for putting the aforementioned question in context (that it has become "a matter of political symbolism", that it insinuates "donating to them is a way of saying you can be a 'Gater and not a misogynist"). What was the nature of 4chan's interest in the project? The article doesn't mention their relationship with Quinn. My reading on this topic is limited, but having read the part of Gamergate controversy that relates to this article, I think it could use a wee bit more context (especially with respect to the connections that made it notable in the first place). Otherwise, I think you did a fine job with the difficult task of keeping this "controversial" topic neutral. (I'll be around this weekend for a faster reply—sorry for the delay this week.) czar ♔ 09:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Also never resolved is the group's intentions vis-à-vis 4chan, which is really murky from my read of this article (not addressed until the last line of the article, but even then it's one-sided). Has there been nothing published that discusses the connection?
- I do see your point regarding clarifying the nature of 4chan's involvement and have edited the page accordingly. Personally, I was concerned about getting too much into the allegations against Quinn in this article, because I want it to be as much about TFYC as possible.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- A reasonable concern. But to that point, it's hard to see how the article can be as much about TYFC as possible when all of its coverage is vis-à-vis 4chan and Quinn. The changes look good, but for neutrality, I'd qualify how they "were being criticized"—mainly, by whom? Everyone? Vice magazine? Feminist media? Also, having just read the article, the "show of solidarity" is not discussed. It would be more accurate to say that Vice reported that 4chan users supported the project to hurt Quinn's reputation ("make Quinn look bad") and to improve 4chan's public image ("make 4chan 'look really good'")—which is to say nothing about solidarity or interest in the actual project (unless some source actually asserts this). The "PR-untouchable" would also make a good pull quote in that it summarizes this entire connection and the cause for the article topic's notability. czar ♔ 16:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- DYK is not GA or FA, it does not really require this type of stringent criticism. There is no need for the exact words to be used. I am summarizing the sources, which do make it clear they supported TFYC because they wanted to support a group that had been in opposition with Quinn. Vice is a biased source so I am not going to appropriate their exact wording. I added the Forbes source because it gives a slightly more neutral description of what happened, though the quote from the /v/ member in Vice is also relevant.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Neutrality is part of the DYK criteria, ostensibly because we want front page articles to be vetted for our core policies. I understand that the back and forth can get frustrating, so I tried to keep this easy—the only reason I bring any of this up is because it's fundamental to article. If there is no neutral description of the relationship between 4chan and TFYC, it makes sense to use the most neutral description and then to qualify it to the source, but however you want to do it, it needs to be explained. The sentiment that it was a sign of "solidarity" rather than out of self-interest is not reflected in the source given. If you would prefer a third opinion, that's fine, just let me know. czar ♔ 19:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I do note that they argued it could help their public image. They were clearly showing solidarity with a group that Quinn had criticized and mention that, though not in those exact words. You seem to be telling me to say they did it solely to attack Quinn and make themselves look better, but I do not believe that is warranted by the sources nor do I believe it would be neutral.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- The term "solidarity" infers an intention (a goodwill) that I didn't see presented by the sources. (In the other article cited, Forbes (which has had issues with reliability in the past but anyway) said:
Unless it is reported somewhere, anywhere, that the support was based off of sympathies and solidarity, the sources say otherwise. The best route would be to use exactly what the article says in its language and to attribute in-text to the source, but if you're uncomfortable with that, I'm having trouble thinking of a less neutral alternative. We would be remiss to attribute their intentions to anything else, based on what the RS say. czar ♔ 14:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)So it was strange when /v/ rallied behind TFYC, raising $17,000 for the game jam partly in order to spite Quinn and partly in order to mess with everyone’s preconceptions of the forum.
- The sentence as a whole should be read as saying they saw it as a show of solidarity that would make them look good. I feel that is an accurate and neutral description.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I already said and provided examples of how "solidarity" inaccurately paraphrases the sources on the 4chan–TYFC relationship ("support" maybe, but "solidarity" implies shared conviction—an alternative: "4chan users felt that their support of TYFC would provide positive press while sending an anti-Quinn sentiment.") If you insist on the current language, I'll just leave the final call to the closer. Nice work czar ♔ 21:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Support" is a good suggestion, so I changed it accordingly.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence as a whole should be read as saying they saw it as a show of solidarity that would make them look good. I feel that is an accurate and neutral description.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The term "solidarity" infers an intention (a goodwill) that I didn't see presented by the sources. (In the other article cited, Forbes (which has had issues with reliability in the past but anyway) said:
- I do note that they argued it could help their public image. They were clearly showing solidarity with a group that Quinn had criticized and mention that, though not in those exact words. You seem to be telling me to say they did it solely to attack Quinn and make themselves look better, but I do not believe that is warranted by the sources nor do I believe it would be neutral.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Neutrality is part of the DYK criteria, ostensibly because we want front page articles to be vetted for our core policies. I understand that the back and forth can get frustrating, so I tried to keep this easy—the only reason I bring any of this up is because it's fundamental to article. If there is no neutral description of the relationship between 4chan and TFYC, it makes sense to use the most neutral description and then to qualify it to the source, but however you want to do it, it needs to be explained. The sentiment that it was a sign of "solidarity" rather than out of self-interest is not reflected in the source given. If you would prefer a third opinion, that's fine, just let me know. czar ♔ 19:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- DYK is not GA or FA, it does not really require this type of stringent criticism. There is no need for the exact words to be used. I am summarizing the sources, which do make it clear they supported TFYC because they wanted to support a group that had been in opposition with Quinn. Vice is a biased source so I am not going to appropriate their exact wording. I added the Forbes source because it gives a slightly more neutral description of what happened, though the quote from the /v/ member in Vice is also relevant.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- A reasonable concern. But to that point, it's hard to see how the article can be as much about TYFC as possible when all of its coverage is vis-à-vis 4chan and Quinn. The changes look good, but for neutrality, I'd qualify how they "were being criticized"—mainly, by whom? Everyone? Vice magazine? Feminist media? Also, having just read the article, the "show of solidarity" is not discussed. It would be more accurate to say that Vice reported that 4chan users supported the project to hurt Quinn's reputation ("make Quinn look bad") and to improve 4chan's public image ("make 4chan 'look really good'")—which is to say nothing about solidarity or interest in the actual project (unless some source actually asserts this). The "PR-untouchable" would also make a good pull quote in that it summarizes this entire connection and the cause for the article topic's notability. czar ♔ 16:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I do see your point regarding clarifying the nature of 4chan's involvement and have edited the page accordingly. Personally, I was concerned about getting too much into the allegations against Quinn in this article, because I want it to be as much about TFYC as possible.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I just sensed this terrible idea. Don't put this on the main page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)