This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 |
[Anita] Sarkeesian's attackers took her critical commentary as unfair and unwarranted, and considered her an interloper. [1] [2] [3]
- ^ Fernandez-Blance, Katherine (10 July 2012). "Gamer campaign against Anita Sarkeesian catches Toronto feminist in crossfire". Toronto Star.
- ^ Lyonnais, Sheena (10 July 2012). "EXCLUSIVE: Anita Sarkeesian Responds to Beat Up Game, Online Harassment, and Death Threats on Stephanie Guthrie". Toronto Standard.
- ^ Filipovic, Jill (8 June 2015). "Anita Sarkeesian Is Fighting to Make the Web Less Awful for Women – And Getting Death Threats in the Process". Cosmopolitan.
I think this statement is an example of false balance, giving undue weight to the views of some Internet trolls, and ought to be cut absent more thorough secondary sourcing. The first two sources are short, contemporary news articles about responses to the game "Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian" and don't analyze the views of her attackers in any depth. The second is actually just a statement by Sarkeesian attached to a recap of an earlier story.
The Cosmo story seems to be the source for the "unfair and unwarranted" text. However, the source immediately goes on to say (my bolding): There are surely a lot of reasons why people think it’s acceptable to harass a stranger online: a virtual mob mentality that encourages bystanders to participate, a specific kind of socially stunted young man who may frequent male-heavy online gaming communities, the safety in being cruel anonymously, and the rush as others applaud your viciousness. Sarkeesian was attacked because she was a woman in a space many men believed was created for and by them, and she was trying to change gaming. Her harassers seemed to fear that her efforts might just work.
The focus is clearly on the misogyny, rather than Sarkeesian's purported unfairness or status as an "interloper". —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 20:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if not, a subject-matter expert is invited to expand Ethan Ralph § GamerGate controversy as appropriate. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a ref error, where a list defined reference named "IBTimesTrudeauGG" is unused and therefore has created a cite error. Please fix this error. Thanks. Sungodtemple ( talk) 17:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
At the end of the third paragraph in the article, there is a line that says "Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims."
Should the word "falsely" be used there? This would indicate that "falsely" is a fact, and there may be varying opinions on that.
Jimithing1980 ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
While the above noted paragraph does involve comments made by a central GamerGate figure, Brianna Wu, the paragraph and comments made by Mx. Wu, are in no way related to, or resulting from, the GamerGate controversy. Therefore, per WP:OFFTOPIC. I have removed this paragraph. In contrast, the other recently added Legacy content does have some connection to the GamerGate controversy and therefore should remain in the article.
If you disagree with this removal, fair enough - however I would ask to please discuss here so we can arrive at consensus - Thanks. --- VeritasS ( talk) 22:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
direct site calls GamerGate as a precursor to the movements which led to the attacks
This
edit request to
Gamergate controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add these parameters to reference #264: (currently this: [1])
|last=Rosenburg |first=Alyssa |date=December 7, 2015 |title=Donald Trump is the Gamergate of Republican politics |website=The Washington Post
Coolperson177 ( talk) 14:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This edit softening the language has been made twice now: [1] [2], I guess on the pretext that the source says "After the developer was doxed, the prank calls, threatening e-mails, and abusive tweets intensified to such a degree that Quinn, fearing for her safety, chose to leave her home and sleep on friends’ sofas. She is now working with authorities to find the faceless attackers." but does not directly use the word "flee". Given that "left" undersells the situation and there's no end of sources that will say "flee" but that we are trying what is our bets course of action here? Assuming the concensus is not just that we simply revert it on common sense grounds. Artw ( talk) 18:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 06:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gamergate which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit for a handful of reasons and thought I'd lay them out here rather than stuffing it into an edit summary. The first issue is that the added text struck me as out of place. That sentence begins by discussing how Gamergate was fueled by misogyny and sexism, this claim appears to blame feminism itself, and then we're back to talking about misogyny. I suppose there might be a better place for it, but the second (and bigger) issue is the National Review piece itself. Per WP:RSP, we should attribute claims to NR (and this did), we need to treat opinion pieces as opinion pieces (and this appears to be one, as Maggie Gallagher is a columnist), and we need to consider due weight concerns. I think that due weight is a major factor here, as it's an opinion piece with a one-off mention about Gamergate, and it runs counter to hundreds or thousands of pieces of actual journalism. As I said, maybe we could move this somewhere else, but is it worth it? Woodroar ( talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we add the stuff about the "Horsemen" and ArbCom (and the ban was lifted?)
- ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: moved. There is a clear consensus to move to Gamergate (harassment campaign). Most editors felt the proposed title more accurately represented the presentation in reliable sources. Opposing editors felt the current title was the COMMONNAME and/or more accurately covered the full scope of the article. Some supporting editors said the COMMONNAME was simply "Gamergate". Since the Gamergate title is occupied by the ant, a WP:QUALIFIER is required for this page. That can take the form of an alternate common name (i.e. what the opposers preferred), or parenthetical disambiguation (what the supporters preferred). Both arguments are reasonable, and policy doesn't prefer one approach over the other; in this discussion the latter has a significant numerical advantage in support. Many editors also suggested Gamergate harassment campaign or taking over Gamergate; consensus for one of these can be tested in another RM. ( non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Gamergate controversy → Gamergate (harassment campaign) – This page was subject to many move requests in 2014–2016, eventually resulting in a move request injunction. It can be particularly tough to figure out the proper name for something as it is underway, and as reporting evolves (as some other articles have demonstrated recently), but as the dust settles it sometimes becomes more clear. I think now that we are several years removed from the events that eventually came to be known as "Gamergate", it is quite clear that the proper name for this article would be "Gamergate (harassment campaign)", or possibly "Gamergate harassment campaign". It is now clear that the only "controversy", about alleged conflict of interest in games reporting, turned out to be false. This article is now unequivocal in describing Gamergate, accurately, as a "harassment campaign", introducing it as such in the lead sentence, but for some reason (perhaps move request fatigue) the article title never changed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 03:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/05/gamergate-threats-brianna-wu/
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 01:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Gamergate became associated with the "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies" during 2015 Hugo Awards for science fiction writing. These groups organized voting blocs that dominated the 2015 Hugo Awards. The campaign was described as a backlash against the increasing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in science fiction. Members of the bloc said[...]
I found this confusing: reference is made to two blocs, but then to "the bloc": which one is "the bloc"? Unless you're already familiar with the subject, it's also not that clear from our text that Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are aligned rather than, for example, opposing groups (since this article says "the bloc [singular] said that they sought to counteract what they saw as a focus on giving awards based on the race, ethnicity, or gender", leaving unclear whether the other named bloc also wanted this or was the opposition. If by "the bloc" the Sad Puppies (only) are meant, I suggest changing to "the Sad Puppies" or "the Sad Puppies bloc"; if the combined Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies bloc(s) are meant, I suggest changing to "the blocs" or "these groups".
-sche (
talk) 01:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
By 2018, the Sad Puppies had diminished visibility, and Quinn's 2017 memoir Crash Override was nominated for the 2018 Hugo Award for Best Related Work (for non-fiction works related to science fiction or fantasy)., seems like it only verifies that Quinn's memoir was nominated, and doesn't verify
By 2018, the Sad Puppies had diminished visibility. Perhaps someone can add sourcing that verifies that, and that connects the Sad Puppies to Gamergate, and reduce the size/complexity of the paragraph, but it should probably still name both blocs. -sche ( talk) 01:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I reverted [ ] because I'm not seeing how GG was about internet activism. It was a harassment campaign. Please feel free to revert, but please leave a note explaining how GG is related to activism. - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 06:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the title of this is a little non-neutral. CycoMa ( talk) 05:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Now that the article title has changed, it only makes sense that the lead sentence change.
Current |
---|
The Gamergate controversy concerned an online harassment campaign, primarily conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that centered on issues of sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture. |
Proposed |
Gamergate was an online harassment campaign, primarily conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that centered on issues of sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture. |
Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Martin IIIa, GorillaWarfare, and ForbiddenRocky: let's work this out! ForbiddenRocky, I don't think the guideline section you quoted applies, as 'Gamergate' does not redirect to this page (it goes to the disambiguation page). Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 22:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a
WP:NOTAMB-based argument against having any hat note on these two articles. See
this diff from
Martin IIIa. I think I get the idea here. Economy of the LEAD is important. That's prime real estate, and I understand the impulse to remove extraneous templates as much as the next guy. But, personally I don't find the NOTAMB argument all that convincing. For one, the guideline says directly: "The presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other.
"
These are two topics that have been linked quite a few times to each other, and both have lots of hits, and are extremely unrelated. There's also GamersGate, the online shop, which is similar enough to the other two that it would probably help to have a way to get from one article to the other without having to go back to search. Example scenarios where I, an anonymous reader, would be confused and need a hatnote:
None of these are preferable scenarios. Why are we okay with them happening?— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• I type
GamerGate
into my browser, thinking I'm going to find the ant...
Headcounting suggests that GorrilaWarfare, Shibbolethink, Orangemike, and ForbiddenRocky have supported a hat, Mathglot is neutral, and Martin IIIa and I oppose. 2:1 against me. I think the guideline supports removal, but I acknowledge the potential loophole in GamerGate. I want to repeat my point from above: pageviews suggest that a practically insignificant number of readers will unintentionally find their way here via that redirect or by typing in the full url of the redirect into their browser. As the rough consensus stands, I don't intend to revert the addition of the hat, and I suggest that Martin IIIa should stop unless consensus here shifts. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Was this not an internet movement which grew more complex over time? Tisthefirstletter ( talk) 10:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Current content: Gamergate was an online harassment campaign, initially conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that promoted sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture.
Proposed content: Gamergate was an online harassment campaign, initially conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that opposed progressivism in video game culture.
Reasoning: I think this article would need a pretty good citation to prove that the harassers were reactionaries. Sure, there was a fair share of them shouting "back to the kitchen". But the majority of them likely didn't believe in that. The goal of such statements is not to convince others of the virtues of sexism, but to piss people off. Trolling, in other words. It's impossible to tell what the political beliefs of a troll are from their statements.
However, who their targets are tells a story. The campaign clearly formed in order to oppose progressivism perceived as being "forced". Many of the members admit to that. But not to trying to undo social progress. The article should therefore not imply that the harassers were reactionaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieknon ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 22:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
...implies that they wanted to turn others into sexists, no, that is not what is being claimed here. Example, one of the targets of the harassment was Anita Sarkeesian for her "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" series, which called out games with overtly-sexist and misogynist content. The Gamergaters double and tripled-down on the sexist content, memes, insults, etc...that they threw at her. Hence "promoted sexism". ValarianB ( talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Gamergate has been described as an expression of sexism and misogyny within gaming culture; its main themes are criticism of feminism and so-called "social justice warriors", who are perceived as a threat to traditional video games, ie. it was an expression of sexism and misogyny rather than promoting it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
is the article not 1RR anymore? - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Yodabyte: Acts of misogyny are not a criticism of feminism. Category:Misogyny & Category:Sexual harassment are included, is that what you're trying to get at? Otherwise, please show RS the shows that the harassment campaign was a criticism of feminism. - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 21:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@ X-Editor: gamergate was not a movement. provide RS saying it was a movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gamergate_%28harassment_campaign%29&type=revision&diff=1066610217&oldid=1066546888 - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 09:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remember when GamerGate movement criticized poor state of gaming journalism? It was Kickstarted by the controversy of Zoë Quinn's Depression Quest, a game that tried to tackle depression, but failed miserably. This page looks biased, it says that the movement promoted sexism and misogyny in gaming, which is biased, even sources don't help either. GamerGate, by neutral POV, is an online backlash criticising the corruption of games journalism (IGN, Kotaku, PC Gamer) for it alienating gamers themselves. I hope this article and its "reliable" sources will be investigated. I'm sorry if I was pro-GamerGate, but this page was borderline pro-political correctness and accusatory of sexism and misogyny in gaming community complete with caricatures. Hope you'll learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxkatsur ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a reminder that this page is full of absurdities on account of how this page is handled by a handful of editors and their interpretation of the rules. Any time any body tries to suggest a change to show information that could potentially make this page actually more neutral and factual is immediately shut down. The conversations are deleted from the Talk page and closed. Often, "reliable sources" are invoked as justification for the rigid gatekeeping of the page. And you'll get told to "fuck off" to boot (literally happened to me when I suggested changes here).
Just a couple of problems with the "reliable sources" circle-jerk, for people who are about the truth and evidence. Much of the "reliable sources" aren't reliable, and so much has happened within the GamerGate controversy (ethics in games journalism, ideological conformity among the press) that aren't covered by those sources.
A couple of examples.
Under 'Legacy', many things are claimed. With a quote from Brianna Wu, it's claimed that if only the FBI did what Wu wanted about GamerGate (2014), then the Capitol Hill riot (2021) wouldn't have happened. That's absurd. There's no evidence to support such an insane proposition. There's nothing there, no reasonable justification to believe there's a tenable connection or cause, between GamerGate and the Capitol Hill riot. Just because Wu says it doesn't mean it's reliable, and just because Wu's words get published by an outlet on your pre-approved "reliable" list, doesn't make it reliable. The Capitol Hill Riot is completely off topic to GamerGate.
"Joan Donovan, research director at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, said that key figures in Gamergate worked to raise online fury ahead of the attack.(290)." That's not what source 290 said, so somebody really ought to fix that, number one. Number two, again, just because a talking head said it, doesn't make it reliable, even if she's a research chair. We need data. Where is the data? It's also not enough that it's CNN. Evidence, where is the evidence? Meanwhile, one of the actual few examples of a data study into the beliefs and attitudes of GamerGate supporters, published in the journal Psychology of Popular Media, won't get posted on the page. The study which flies in the face of the "alt-right" narrative. https://www.christopherjferguson.com/GamerGate.pdf (quick addition - Brad Glasgow who co-authored this, has also publicly called into question Joan Donovan's methodology). https://twitter.com/Brad_Glasgow/status/1523377742548324353
So, Capitol Hill Riot - wildly off topic, has an entire paragraph dedicated to the utterly batshit proposition. Actual data study into attitudes of hundreds of GG supporters, nowhere to be seen on the wiki page.
You know what would be on topic? The fact that Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project is currently 1369 days late in delivering a product to people who collectively paid $85,448. I can't link directly to kickstarter, but if you google Zoe Quinn and Kickstarter, her project is the first result, the info I just relayed is all there.
Wow, it's about ethics, it's about a video game, it's about one of the original controversial figures.... and there's no mention of it anywhere on the wiki page. I believe I had suggested an older kickscammed article as a source before here, this one https://kickscammed.com/project/project-tingler-kickstarted-in-the-butt-zoe-quinn-chuck-tingle-fmv-game/ But I believe it was dismissed because of a spelling mistake, and because it's not CNN... but it's a fact that Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project is currently 1369 days late in delivering a product to people who collectively paid $85,448.
Why isn't that information anywhere on the GG wiki page? When you figure that out, you'll figure out what I think of your usage of "reliable sources".
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the wikipedia page on GamerGate is so biased as to actually be uninformative. Confusing, even. It really pokes the holes in the problems with the entire format. No original research like deepfreeze.it allowed (can't recommend deepfreeze.it enough for people who actually want original sourcing and data to back up claims).
A lot has been published about GamerGate but truth is, most people don't know what they're talking about, most of what's published isn't well informed. There's a lot of myth making and bias. It's not "consensus" or "reliable".
I'll be archiving and screenshotting this commment.
Kainedamo ( talk) 02:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Kind of amazing people try and make this sort of thing fly in 2022, when 4chan trolls are pretty much a known quantity amongst the most normie of folks. Anyway, suspect this whole section is going to need to go due to massive and deliberate violations of WP:BLPTALK. Artw ( talk) 03:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
HATing pro-GG commentary by a now indef blocked editor. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 11:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A new section was added to the Talk page, 171 and 172. Adding the Glasgow/Ferguson study is a big step, 171. It was much needed and a long time coming for providing a bigger picture. Right now it reads as, ' it's A December 2015 to January 2016 survey of Gamergate supporters on Twitter suggested that they were "more left-wing than the general population."[171] However, a 2020 review analyzing ten discussion boards on r/KotakuInAction suggested a connection between Gamergate and right-wing extremism (RWE), finding that the three main themes in these discussion boards were "RWE bigotry", "always anti-left" and "hate speech is free speech".[172] ' Let's examine 172 - Right Wing Extremism in a Video Game Community? A Qualitative Content Analysis Exploring the Discourse of the Reddit GamerGate Community r/KotakuInAction by Ashley Peckford. Ashley Peckford herself says in the essay, "the blatant use of dogwhistles is probably the most concrete and concerning evidence of a connection between GamerGate and RWE". The most concrete, as in the most solid evidence, right? She also reminds us several times that "dogwhistles" are subtle phrases. Her essay is based on ten threads from KiA. What are some examples of "dogwhistles" provided? "honk honk" "clown world" (which has its own wiki page, first result when I googled the essay) "globalism" "anti-racism means anti-white" Could it be possible that there are innocent reasons other than RWE that people would use these phrases? This whole "fear the meme" mentality leads people to bad conclusions about swathes of people, when you have reason to just assume innocence with over assuming guilt. I'm sure you've heard about the okay hang signal as an example of RWE dogwhistling, the ACLU is probably cited on wikipedia somewhere on this. It's essentially hogwash. When you look at the origin of the hand signal meme, it's so blatantly obviously a joke at the expense of the sort of neurotic person that'd take it seriously. Next thing you know, people are getting into trouble for posing in photographs with the okay hand signal. It's absurd. Why assume a malicious motive when you can assume an innocent motive? Memes are funny. They communicate many ideas and feelings. It's incredibly subjective. I am not going to assume someone means "heil hitler" if they said "honk honk", I'm not going to assume someone is alt-right because they share images of pepe dressed as a clown, and I'd be a moron for making such assumptions about online strangers. This methodology is no better than throwing darts blindfolded and only serves to obfuscate, confuse nuanced conversations, and stir moral panic. Occam's razor comes to mind. I know which position is more safe from getting cut on those blades. The Ferguson/Glasgow study was based on data from a 55-item PEW based survey of 725 GG supporters, for comparison. 171 should stay, 172 should go. One more thing. The section on 'hate speech is free speech'. Freedom of speech is a liberal principle. To stand for freedom of speech by necessity means supporting the freedom of speech you do not like. Why assume RWE when you can assume the basic standard of liberal values? Similar goes for many examples of comments used from Peckford. I can't guarantee that I'd agree with every comment, but I've definitely seen a number where you could easily apply a consistent enforcement of liberal principles over assuming RWE motives. Anything else? Should I provide more or is this enough for discussion of removal of 172? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainedamo ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
|
HATing pro-GG commentary by a now indef blocked editor. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 11:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Johnnny Depp v. Amber Heard defamation trial took place between 11 April to 1 June, 2022. On May 20th, 2022 Aja Romano wrote "Culture critic Ella Dawson has a Twitter thread compiling reporting on the myriad ways in which this trial is not only destroying years of progress made against domestic abuse in the US, but also laying the groundwork for a culture in which bots and bad actors harass, vilify, and eviscerate all other prominent women who publicly name their abusers — like Gamergate, but times tens of millions of participants, and gleefully endorsed by people all across American culture." {{|title=Why the Depp-Heard trial is so much worse than you realize |url= https://www.vox.com/culture/23131538/johnny-depp-amber-heard-tiktok-snl-extremism}} Amanda Hess from The New York Times, "It’s tempting to ignore all of this — to refuse to feed the machine with even more attention. But like Gamergate, which took an obscure gaming-community controversy and inflated it into an internet-wide anti-feminist harassment campaign and a broader right-wing movement, this nihilistic circus is a potentially radicalizing event. When the trial ends this week, the elaborate grassroots campaign to smear a woman will remain, now with a plugged-in support base and a field-tested harassment playbook. All it needs is a new target." {{|date=May 26, 2022 |title=TikTok’s Amber Heard Hate Machine |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/arts/amber-heard-tiktok-johnny-depp.html}} Katherine Denkinson writing for The Independent states there were coordinated attacks against Amber Heard as well as those who testified on her behalf. "This coordinated anger against Amber Heard has also been taken up by some publications. Website The Daily Wire spent thousands of dollars on Facebook ads, while Fox News, published an article using the tweets of a GamerGate proponent that was mocking Heard’s appearance. Coverage of the case by alt-right pundits has primarily focused on Heard as the woman who (supposedly) broke the #MeToo movement."{{|date=27 May 2022 |title= From Gamergate to AmberTurd: The alt-right is hijacking the Depp v Heard trial |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/depp-heard-trial-gamergate-amberturd-altright-b2088919.html}} Michael Hobbes for Slate, "Officially, it was the conclusion of a six-week defamation trial between two celebrities. In reality, it was the culmination of the largest explosion of online misogyny since Gamergate—and a chilling vision of the future of the internet." {{|date=June 03, 2022 |title=What Really Happened at the Amber Heard–Johnny Depp Trial |url= https://slate.com/culture/2022/06/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-verdict-evidence-truth.html}} Ashley Bardhan for Kotaku, "You can’t do anything online without seeing him smiling, seeing unwarranted hate for her. It feels inescapable, and I feel that people hate imperfect women more than they’re able to state clearly." She further elaborates, "But then there are darker times in pop culture, like when the world laughed as a broken Britney Spears lashed out at swarming paparazzi with an umbrella, or when GamerGate sneered and drew an ugly line in the sand: Women, especially complex women, aren’t welcome here."{{|date=22nd June, 2022 |title=Vilifying Amber Heard Shows We Learned Nothing From GamerGate |url= https://kotaku.com/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-gamergate-me-too-twitch-1849095122}} This could all fit as a new part of the Legacy portion of the page. Aja Romano has been used as a reference six times already, Amanda Hess has already been used as a reference, Slate has been used as reference a number of times, and Kotaku has also previously been used as reference. The Denkinson Depp/Heard article is already on the page but as you can see there's a lot more coverage from /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources so shouldn't the section have a broader range with all these articles included? Maybe it can be tidied up, but I really think the section should be more broad in order to convey the sheer consensus on the GamerGate comparison to the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. Kainedamo ( talk) 18:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The Fine Young Capitalists, a GamerGate spin-off article that's a bit of a weird fossil from back of the time of peak GamerGate activity, is seeing some edits again. It basically went nowhere and did nothing of any notability outside of GamerGate so I'm wondering if, with that historical perspective, we should look at merging or deleting it? Artw ( talk) 23:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved
It appears that consensus points to this article not being a primary topic. Moreover, frustration has been expressed by many editors about the regular occurrence of such RMs even though nothing has changed since the last RM in 2021. (
non-admin closure) >>>
Extorc.
talk 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Gamergate (harassment campaign) → Gamergate – There are two topics under the name "gamergate". According to Wikipedia Disambigation rules, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed." Therefore, this page should be renamed as simply gamergate and the disambiguation page should be removed. -- Madame Necker ( talk) 22:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Names used in reliable sources include "Gamergate", "GamerGate", and "#GamerGate". "Gamergate" is ambiguous, and we can't use "#GamerGate" for technical reasons, which leaves "GamerGate" as the most concise yet unambiguous title. The unique capitalization should avoid any primary topic concerns without the need for Wikipedia users to agree on a label ("campaign", "movement", etc.). -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This article seems like a really useful source, but I haven't been able to find a way to access it. X-Editor ( talk) 20:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a long string of @ X-Editor:'s edits to trim the Legacy section, not because I disagree entirely, but because with so many edits it became difficult and confusing to make the several small changes I wanted make. We can discuss this here in more detail, or if X-Editor could make edits that don't both rearrange the article as a whole and edit blocks of texts in major ways, then I might be able to address just the parts I think need to be retained. - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 20:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC) - WP:BRD - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 |
[Anita] Sarkeesian's attackers took her critical commentary as unfair and unwarranted, and considered her an interloper. [1] [2] [3]
- ^ Fernandez-Blance, Katherine (10 July 2012). "Gamer campaign against Anita Sarkeesian catches Toronto feminist in crossfire". Toronto Star.
- ^ Lyonnais, Sheena (10 July 2012). "EXCLUSIVE: Anita Sarkeesian Responds to Beat Up Game, Online Harassment, and Death Threats on Stephanie Guthrie". Toronto Standard.
- ^ Filipovic, Jill (8 June 2015). "Anita Sarkeesian Is Fighting to Make the Web Less Awful for Women – And Getting Death Threats in the Process". Cosmopolitan.
I think this statement is an example of false balance, giving undue weight to the views of some Internet trolls, and ought to be cut absent more thorough secondary sourcing. The first two sources are short, contemporary news articles about responses to the game "Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian" and don't analyze the views of her attackers in any depth. The second is actually just a statement by Sarkeesian attached to a recap of an earlier story.
The Cosmo story seems to be the source for the "unfair and unwarranted" text. However, the source immediately goes on to say (my bolding): There are surely a lot of reasons why people think it’s acceptable to harass a stranger online: a virtual mob mentality that encourages bystanders to participate, a specific kind of socially stunted young man who may frequent male-heavy online gaming communities, the safety in being cruel anonymously, and the rush as others applaud your viciousness. Sarkeesian was attacked because she was a woman in a space many men believed was created for and by them, and she was trying to change gaming. Her harassers seemed to fear that her efforts might just work.
The focus is clearly on the misogyny, rather than Sarkeesian's purported unfairness or status as an "interloper". —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 20:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if not, a subject-matter expert is invited to expand Ethan Ralph § GamerGate controversy as appropriate. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a ref error, where a list defined reference named "IBTimesTrudeauGG" is unused and therefore has created a cite error. Please fix this error. Thanks. Sungodtemple ( talk) 17:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
At the end of the third paragraph in the article, there is a line that says "Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims."
Should the word "falsely" be used there? This would indicate that "falsely" is a fact, and there may be varying opinions on that.
Jimithing1980 ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
While the above noted paragraph does involve comments made by a central GamerGate figure, Brianna Wu, the paragraph and comments made by Mx. Wu, are in no way related to, or resulting from, the GamerGate controversy. Therefore, per WP:OFFTOPIC. I have removed this paragraph. In contrast, the other recently added Legacy content does have some connection to the GamerGate controversy and therefore should remain in the article.
If you disagree with this removal, fair enough - however I would ask to please discuss here so we can arrive at consensus - Thanks. --- VeritasS ( talk) 22:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
direct site calls GamerGate as a precursor to the movements which led to the attacks
This
edit request to
Gamergate controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add these parameters to reference #264: (currently this: [1])
|last=Rosenburg |first=Alyssa |date=December 7, 2015 |title=Donald Trump is the Gamergate of Republican politics |website=The Washington Post
Coolperson177 ( talk) 14:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This edit softening the language has been made twice now: [1] [2], I guess on the pretext that the source says "After the developer was doxed, the prank calls, threatening e-mails, and abusive tweets intensified to such a degree that Quinn, fearing for her safety, chose to leave her home and sleep on friends’ sofas. She is now working with authorities to find the faceless attackers." but does not directly use the word "flee". Given that "left" undersells the situation and there's no end of sources that will say "flee" but that we are trying what is our bets course of action here? Assuming the concensus is not just that we simply revert it on common sense grounds. Artw ( talk) 18:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 06:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gamergate which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit for a handful of reasons and thought I'd lay them out here rather than stuffing it into an edit summary. The first issue is that the added text struck me as out of place. That sentence begins by discussing how Gamergate was fueled by misogyny and sexism, this claim appears to blame feminism itself, and then we're back to talking about misogyny. I suppose there might be a better place for it, but the second (and bigger) issue is the National Review piece itself. Per WP:RSP, we should attribute claims to NR (and this did), we need to treat opinion pieces as opinion pieces (and this appears to be one, as Maggie Gallagher is a columnist), and we need to consider due weight concerns. I think that due weight is a major factor here, as it's an opinion piece with a one-off mention about Gamergate, and it runs counter to hundreds or thousands of pieces of actual journalism. As I said, maybe we could move this somewhere else, but is it worth it? Woodroar ( talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we add the stuff about the "Horsemen" and ArbCom (and the ban was lifted?)
- ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: moved. There is a clear consensus to move to Gamergate (harassment campaign). Most editors felt the proposed title more accurately represented the presentation in reliable sources. Opposing editors felt the current title was the COMMONNAME and/or more accurately covered the full scope of the article. Some supporting editors said the COMMONNAME was simply "Gamergate". Since the Gamergate title is occupied by the ant, a WP:QUALIFIER is required for this page. That can take the form of an alternate common name (i.e. what the opposers preferred), or parenthetical disambiguation (what the supporters preferred). Both arguments are reasonable, and policy doesn't prefer one approach over the other; in this discussion the latter has a significant numerical advantage in support. Many editors also suggested Gamergate harassment campaign or taking over Gamergate; consensus for one of these can be tested in another RM. ( non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Gamergate controversy → Gamergate (harassment campaign) – This page was subject to many move requests in 2014–2016, eventually resulting in a move request injunction. It can be particularly tough to figure out the proper name for something as it is underway, and as reporting evolves (as some other articles have demonstrated recently), but as the dust settles it sometimes becomes more clear. I think now that we are several years removed from the events that eventually came to be known as "Gamergate", it is quite clear that the proper name for this article would be "Gamergate (harassment campaign)", or possibly "Gamergate harassment campaign". It is now clear that the only "controversy", about alleged conflict of interest in games reporting, turned out to be false. This article is now unequivocal in describing Gamergate, accurately, as a "harassment campaign", introducing it as such in the lead sentence, but for some reason (perhaps move request fatigue) the article title never changed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 03:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/05/gamergate-threats-brianna-wu/
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 01:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Gamergate became associated with the "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies" during 2015 Hugo Awards for science fiction writing. These groups organized voting blocs that dominated the 2015 Hugo Awards. The campaign was described as a backlash against the increasing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in science fiction. Members of the bloc said[...]
I found this confusing: reference is made to two blocs, but then to "the bloc": which one is "the bloc"? Unless you're already familiar with the subject, it's also not that clear from our text that Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are aligned rather than, for example, opposing groups (since this article says "the bloc [singular] said that they sought to counteract what they saw as a focus on giving awards based on the race, ethnicity, or gender", leaving unclear whether the other named bloc also wanted this or was the opposition. If by "the bloc" the Sad Puppies (only) are meant, I suggest changing to "the Sad Puppies" or "the Sad Puppies bloc"; if the combined Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies bloc(s) are meant, I suggest changing to "the blocs" or "these groups".
-sche (
talk) 01:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
By 2018, the Sad Puppies had diminished visibility, and Quinn's 2017 memoir Crash Override was nominated for the 2018 Hugo Award for Best Related Work (for non-fiction works related to science fiction or fantasy)., seems like it only verifies that Quinn's memoir was nominated, and doesn't verify
By 2018, the Sad Puppies had diminished visibility. Perhaps someone can add sourcing that verifies that, and that connects the Sad Puppies to Gamergate, and reduce the size/complexity of the paragraph, but it should probably still name both blocs. -sche ( talk) 01:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I reverted [ ] because I'm not seeing how GG was about internet activism. It was a harassment campaign. Please feel free to revert, but please leave a note explaining how GG is related to activism. - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 06:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the title of this is a little non-neutral. CycoMa ( talk) 05:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Now that the article title has changed, it only makes sense that the lead sentence change.
Current |
---|
The Gamergate controversy concerned an online harassment campaign, primarily conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that centered on issues of sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture. |
Proposed |
Gamergate was an online harassment campaign, primarily conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that centered on issues of sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture. |
Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Martin IIIa, GorillaWarfare, and ForbiddenRocky: let's work this out! ForbiddenRocky, I don't think the guideline section you quoted applies, as 'Gamergate' does not redirect to this page (it goes to the disambiguation page). Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 22:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a
WP:NOTAMB-based argument against having any hat note on these two articles. See
this diff from
Martin IIIa. I think I get the idea here. Economy of the LEAD is important. That's prime real estate, and I understand the impulse to remove extraneous templates as much as the next guy. But, personally I don't find the NOTAMB argument all that convincing. For one, the guideline says directly: "The presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other.
"
These are two topics that have been linked quite a few times to each other, and both have lots of hits, and are extremely unrelated. There's also GamersGate, the online shop, which is similar enough to the other two that it would probably help to have a way to get from one article to the other without having to go back to search. Example scenarios where I, an anonymous reader, would be confused and need a hatnote:
None of these are preferable scenarios. Why are we okay with them happening?— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• I type
GamerGate
into my browser, thinking I'm going to find the ant...
Headcounting suggests that GorrilaWarfare, Shibbolethink, Orangemike, and ForbiddenRocky have supported a hat, Mathglot is neutral, and Martin IIIa and I oppose. 2:1 against me. I think the guideline supports removal, but I acknowledge the potential loophole in GamerGate. I want to repeat my point from above: pageviews suggest that a practically insignificant number of readers will unintentionally find their way here via that redirect or by typing in the full url of the redirect into their browser. As the rough consensus stands, I don't intend to revert the addition of the hat, and I suggest that Martin IIIa should stop unless consensus here shifts. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Was this not an internet movement which grew more complex over time? Tisthefirstletter ( talk) 10:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Current content: Gamergate was an online harassment campaign, initially conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that promoted sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture.
Proposed content: Gamergate was an online harassment campaign, initially conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that opposed progressivism in video game culture.
Reasoning: I think this article would need a pretty good citation to prove that the harassers were reactionaries. Sure, there was a fair share of them shouting "back to the kitchen". But the majority of them likely didn't believe in that. The goal of such statements is not to convince others of the virtues of sexism, but to piss people off. Trolling, in other words. It's impossible to tell what the political beliefs of a troll are from their statements.
However, who their targets are tells a story. The campaign clearly formed in order to oppose progressivism perceived as being "forced". Many of the members admit to that. But not to trying to undo social progress. The article should therefore not imply that the harassers were reactionaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieknon ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 22:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
...implies that they wanted to turn others into sexists, no, that is not what is being claimed here. Example, one of the targets of the harassment was Anita Sarkeesian for her "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" series, which called out games with overtly-sexist and misogynist content. The Gamergaters double and tripled-down on the sexist content, memes, insults, etc...that they threw at her. Hence "promoted sexism". ValarianB ( talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Gamergate has been described as an expression of sexism and misogyny within gaming culture; its main themes are criticism of feminism and so-called "social justice warriors", who are perceived as a threat to traditional video games, ie. it was an expression of sexism and misogyny rather than promoting it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
is the article not 1RR anymore? - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Yodabyte: Acts of misogyny are not a criticism of feminism. Category:Misogyny & Category:Sexual harassment are included, is that what you're trying to get at? Otherwise, please show RS the shows that the harassment campaign was a criticism of feminism. - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 21:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@ X-Editor: gamergate was not a movement. provide RS saying it was a movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gamergate_%28harassment_campaign%29&type=revision&diff=1066610217&oldid=1066546888 - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 09:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remember when GamerGate movement criticized poor state of gaming journalism? It was Kickstarted by the controversy of Zoë Quinn's Depression Quest, a game that tried to tackle depression, but failed miserably. This page looks biased, it says that the movement promoted sexism and misogyny in gaming, which is biased, even sources don't help either. GamerGate, by neutral POV, is an online backlash criticising the corruption of games journalism (IGN, Kotaku, PC Gamer) for it alienating gamers themselves. I hope this article and its "reliable" sources will be investigated. I'm sorry if I was pro-GamerGate, but this page was borderline pro-political correctness and accusatory of sexism and misogyny in gaming community complete with caricatures. Hope you'll learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxkatsur ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a reminder that this page is full of absurdities on account of how this page is handled by a handful of editors and their interpretation of the rules. Any time any body tries to suggest a change to show information that could potentially make this page actually more neutral and factual is immediately shut down. The conversations are deleted from the Talk page and closed. Often, "reliable sources" are invoked as justification for the rigid gatekeeping of the page. And you'll get told to "fuck off" to boot (literally happened to me when I suggested changes here).
Just a couple of problems with the "reliable sources" circle-jerk, for people who are about the truth and evidence. Much of the "reliable sources" aren't reliable, and so much has happened within the GamerGate controversy (ethics in games journalism, ideological conformity among the press) that aren't covered by those sources.
A couple of examples.
Under 'Legacy', many things are claimed. With a quote from Brianna Wu, it's claimed that if only the FBI did what Wu wanted about GamerGate (2014), then the Capitol Hill riot (2021) wouldn't have happened. That's absurd. There's no evidence to support such an insane proposition. There's nothing there, no reasonable justification to believe there's a tenable connection or cause, between GamerGate and the Capitol Hill riot. Just because Wu says it doesn't mean it's reliable, and just because Wu's words get published by an outlet on your pre-approved "reliable" list, doesn't make it reliable. The Capitol Hill Riot is completely off topic to GamerGate.
"Joan Donovan, research director at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, said that key figures in Gamergate worked to raise online fury ahead of the attack.(290)." That's not what source 290 said, so somebody really ought to fix that, number one. Number two, again, just because a talking head said it, doesn't make it reliable, even if she's a research chair. We need data. Where is the data? It's also not enough that it's CNN. Evidence, where is the evidence? Meanwhile, one of the actual few examples of a data study into the beliefs and attitudes of GamerGate supporters, published in the journal Psychology of Popular Media, won't get posted on the page. The study which flies in the face of the "alt-right" narrative. https://www.christopherjferguson.com/GamerGate.pdf (quick addition - Brad Glasgow who co-authored this, has also publicly called into question Joan Donovan's methodology). https://twitter.com/Brad_Glasgow/status/1523377742548324353
So, Capitol Hill Riot - wildly off topic, has an entire paragraph dedicated to the utterly batshit proposition. Actual data study into attitudes of hundreds of GG supporters, nowhere to be seen on the wiki page.
You know what would be on topic? The fact that Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project is currently 1369 days late in delivering a product to people who collectively paid $85,448. I can't link directly to kickstarter, but if you google Zoe Quinn and Kickstarter, her project is the first result, the info I just relayed is all there.
Wow, it's about ethics, it's about a video game, it's about one of the original controversial figures.... and there's no mention of it anywhere on the wiki page. I believe I had suggested an older kickscammed article as a source before here, this one https://kickscammed.com/project/project-tingler-kickstarted-in-the-butt-zoe-quinn-chuck-tingle-fmv-game/ But I believe it was dismissed because of a spelling mistake, and because it's not CNN... but it's a fact that Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project is currently 1369 days late in delivering a product to people who collectively paid $85,448.
Why isn't that information anywhere on the GG wiki page? When you figure that out, you'll figure out what I think of your usage of "reliable sources".
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the wikipedia page on GamerGate is so biased as to actually be uninformative. Confusing, even. It really pokes the holes in the problems with the entire format. No original research like deepfreeze.it allowed (can't recommend deepfreeze.it enough for people who actually want original sourcing and data to back up claims).
A lot has been published about GamerGate but truth is, most people don't know what they're talking about, most of what's published isn't well informed. There's a lot of myth making and bias. It's not "consensus" or "reliable".
I'll be archiving and screenshotting this commment.
Kainedamo ( talk) 02:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Kind of amazing people try and make this sort of thing fly in 2022, when 4chan trolls are pretty much a known quantity amongst the most normie of folks. Anyway, suspect this whole section is going to need to go due to massive and deliberate violations of WP:BLPTALK. Artw ( talk) 03:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
HATing pro-GG commentary by a now indef blocked editor. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 11:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A new section was added to the Talk page, 171 and 172. Adding the Glasgow/Ferguson study is a big step, 171. It was much needed and a long time coming for providing a bigger picture. Right now it reads as, ' it's A December 2015 to January 2016 survey of Gamergate supporters on Twitter suggested that they were "more left-wing than the general population."[171] However, a 2020 review analyzing ten discussion boards on r/KotakuInAction suggested a connection between Gamergate and right-wing extremism (RWE), finding that the three main themes in these discussion boards were "RWE bigotry", "always anti-left" and "hate speech is free speech".[172] ' Let's examine 172 - Right Wing Extremism in a Video Game Community? A Qualitative Content Analysis Exploring the Discourse of the Reddit GamerGate Community r/KotakuInAction by Ashley Peckford. Ashley Peckford herself says in the essay, "the blatant use of dogwhistles is probably the most concrete and concerning evidence of a connection between GamerGate and RWE". The most concrete, as in the most solid evidence, right? She also reminds us several times that "dogwhistles" are subtle phrases. Her essay is based on ten threads from KiA. What are some examples of "dogwhistles" provided? "honk honk" "clown world" (which has its own wiki page, first result when I googled the essay) "globalism" "anti-racism means anti-white" Could it be possible that there are innocent reasons other than RWE that people would use these phrases? This whole "fear the meme" mentality leads people to bad conclusions about swathes of people, when you have reason to just assume innocence with over assuming guilt. I'm sure you've heard about the okay hang signal as an example of RWE dogwhistling, the ACLU is probably cited on wikipedia somewhere on this. It's essentially hogwash. When you look at the origin of the hand signal meme, it's so blatantly obviously a joke at the expense of the sort of neurotic person that'd take it seriously. Next thing you know, people are getting into trouble for posing in photographs with the okay hand signal. It's absurd. Why assume a malicious motive when you can assume an innocent motive? Memes are funny. They communicate many ideas and feelings. It's incredibly subjective. I am not going to assume someone means "heil hitler" if they said "honk honk", I'm not going to assume someone is alt-right because they share images of pepe dressed as a clown, and I'd be a moron for making such assumptions about online strangers. This methodology is no better than throwing darts blindfolded and only serves to obfuscate, confuse nuanced conversations, and stir moral panic. Occam's razor comes to mind. I know which position is more safe from getting cut on those blades. The Ferguson/Glasgow study was based on data from a 55-item PEW based survey of 725 GG supporters, for comparison. 171 should stay, 172 should go. One more thing. The section on 'hate speech is free speech'. Freedom of speech is a liberal principle. To stand for freedom of speech by necessity means supporting the freedom of speech you do not like. Why assume RWE when you can assume the basic standard of liberal values? Similar goes for many examples of comments used from Peckford. I can't guarantee that I'd agree with every comment, but I've definitely seen a number where you could easily apply a consistent enforcement of liberal principles over assuming RWE motives. Anything else? Should I provide more or is this enough for discussion of removal of 172? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainedamo ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
|
HATing pro-GG commentary by a now indef blocked editor. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 11:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Johnnny Depp v. Amber Heard defamation trial took place between 11 April to 1 June, 2022. On May 20th, 2022 Aja Romano wrote "Culture critic Ella Dawson has a Twitter thread compiling reporting on the myriad ways in which this trial is not only destroying years of progress made against domestic abuse in the US, but also laying the groundwork for a culture in which bots and bad actors harass, vilify, and eviscerate all other prominent women who publicly name their abusers — like Gamergate, but times tens of millions of participants, and gleefully endorsed by people all across American culture." {{|title=Why the Depp-Heard trial is so much worse than you realize |url= https://www.vox.com/culture/23131538/johnny-depp-amber-heard-tiktok-snl-extremism}} Amanda Hess from The New York Times, "It’s tempting to ignore all of this — to refuse to feed the machine with even more attention. But like Gamergate, which took an obscure gaming-community controversy and inflated it into an internet-wide anti-feminist harassment campaign and a broader right-wing movement, this nihilistic circus is a potentially radicalizing event. When the trial ends this week, the elaborate grassroots campaign to smear a woman will remain, now with a plugged-in support base and a field-tested harassment playbook. All it needs is a new target." {{|date=May 26, 2022 |title=TikTok’s Amber Heard Hate Machine |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/arts/amber-heard-tiktok-johnny-depp.html}} Katherine Denkinson writing for The Independent states there were coordinated attacks against Amber Heard as well as those who testified on her behalf. "This coordinated anger against Amber Heard has also been taken up by some publications. Website The Daily Wire spent thousands of dollars on Facebook ads, while Fox News, published an article using the tweets of a GamerGate proponent that was mocking Heard’s appearance. Coverage of the case by alt-right pundits has primarily focused on Heard as the woman who (supposedly) broke the #MeToo movement."{{|date=27 May 2022 |title= From Gamergate to AmberTurd: The alt-right is hijacking the Depp v Heard trial |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/depp-heard-trial-gamergate-amberturd-altright-b2088919.html}} Michael Hobbes for Slate, "Officially, it was the conclusion of a six-week defamation trial between two celebrities. In reality, it was the culmination of the largest explosion of online misogyny since Gamergate—and a chilling vision of the future of the internet." {{|date=June 03, 2022 |title=What Really Happened at the Amber Heard–Johnny Depp Trial |url= https://slate.com/culture/2022/06/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-verdict-evidence-truth.html}} Ashley Bardhan for Kotaku, "You can’t do anything online without seeing him smiling, seeing unwarranted hate for her. It feels inescapable, and I feel that people hate imperfect women more than they’re able to state clearly." She further elaborates, "But then there are darker times in pop culture, like when the world laughed as a broken Britney Spears lashed out at swarming paparazzi with an umbrella, or when GamerGate sneered and drew an ugly line in the sand: Women, especially complex women, aren’t welcome here."{{|date=22nd June, 2022 |title=Vilifying Amber Heard Shows We Learned Nothing From GamerGate |url= https://kotaku.com/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-gamergate-me-too-twitch-1849095122}} This could all fit as a new part of the Legacy portion of the page. Aja Romano has been used as a reference six times already, Amanda Hess has already been used as a reference, Slate has been used as reference a number of times, and Kotaku has also previously been used as reference. The Denkinson Depp/Heard article is already on the page but as you can see there's a lot more coverage from /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources so shouldn't the section have a broader range with all these articles included? Maybe it can be tidied up, but I really think the section should be more broad in order to convey the sheer consensus on the GamerGate comparison to the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. Kainedamo ( talk) 18:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The Fine Young Capitalists, a GamerGate spin-off article that's a bit of a weird fossil from back of the time of peak GamerGate activity, is seeing some edits again. It basically went nowhere and did nothing of any notability outside of GamerGate so I'm wondering if, with that historical perspective, we should look at merging or deleting it? Artw ( talk) 23:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved
It appears that consensus points to this article not being a primary topic. Moreover, frustration has been expressed by many editors about the regular occurrence of such RMs even though nothing has changed since the last RM in 2021. (
non-admin closure) >>>
Extorc.
talk 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Gamergate (harassment campaign) → Gamergate – There are two topics under the name "gamergate". According to Wikipedia Disambigation rules, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed." Therefore, this page should be renamed as simply gamergate and the disambiguation page should be removed. -- Madame Necker ( talk) 22:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Names used in reliable sources include "Gamergate", "GamerGate", and "#GamerGate". "Gamergate" is ambiguous, and we can't use "#GamerGate" for technical reasons, which leaves "GamerGate" as the most concise yet unambiguous title. The unique capitalization should avoid any primary topic concerns without the need for Wikipedia users to agree on a label ("campaign", "movement", etc.). -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This article seems like a really useful source, but I haven't been able to find a way to access it. X-Editor ( talk) 20:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a long string of @ X-Editor:'s edits to trim the Legacy section, not because I disagree entirely, but because with so many edits it became difficult and confusing to make the several small changes I wanted make. We can discuss this here in more detail, or if X-Editor could make edits that don't both rearrange the article as a whole and edit blocks of texts in major ways, then I might be able to address just the parts I think need to be retained. - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 20:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC) - WP:BRD - ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)