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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
Ok finally have enough time to write a proper suggestion! Here we go! Apologies for my terrible sentence structuring skills:
The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014. It concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. It is most widely known for a harassment campaign against several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. Gamergate began when a former boyfriend of Quinn wrote a lengthy disparaging blog post about her, leading others to falsely accuse her of entering a relationship with a journalist in exchange for positive coverage. Those endorsing the blog post and spreading such accusations against Quinn organized themselves under the Twitter hashtag Gamergate, as well as on IRC channels and websites such as reddit, 4chan and 8chan. Harassment against Quinn and others was coordinated through these discussion forums, including doxing, threats of rape, and death threats. Many of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag argue that they are campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry. Most commentators dismissed Gamergate's ethics concerns, and condemned misogynistic behavior within it.
Gamergate's supporters are largely anonymous, having no official leaders or spokespeople and no single united manifesto. Statements coming out of Gamergate have been inconsistent and contradictory making it difficult for commentators to identify any set goals and motives. As a result of this Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters have committed. Gamergate supporters have attempted to publicly dissociate themselves from misogyny and harassment. Such attempts have often been dismissed as insincere and being for the purpose of improving the group's public image.
The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition, social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism and social justice ideologies on video game culture. As a result Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Most of Gamergate's journalistic ethics concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social critics. They argue that this has resulted in a press which is overly feminist and anti-gamer. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. Such concerns led users of the hashtag to launch email campaigns targeting firms advertising in publications of which they disapproved, asking them to withdraw their advertisements.
Responses within the games industry to Gamergate have largely been negative. The heads of groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Entertainment Software Association, Electronic Arts and Sony Computer Entertainment have strongly condemned Gamergate harassment. Intel, who temporarily withdrew their adverts from gaming news site Gamasutra as the result of a Gamergate email campaign, later pledged $300 million to support a "Diversity in Technology" program. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside to industry to focus more on better methods of tackling online harassment. U.S. Representative ;;Katherine Clark from Massachusetts has campaigned for a stronger government response to online harassment, gaining the support of Congress. Within the industry organizations such as the Crash Override Network and the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative have been founded to provide support to those facing online harassment.
Isn't it just beautiful? Brustopher ( talk) 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Most of Gamergate's journalistic ethics concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social criticsis not verified, and likely not verifiable. Reading broadly, and with a focus on pro-Gamergate sources, it appears that the ethics concerns are multiple - but if I had to attempt to categorise them it would be a) COI / nepotism (journalists covering friends, etc without disclosure), b) collusion (as outlined above), c) progressive advocacy journalism (gaming journalists focusing largely or exclusively on content pursuing a progressive agenda). The third of these does not require collusion, COI or other corruption, but is still firmly a journalism ethics issue - as previously detailed eloquently and at length by MarkBernstein on this Talk page. I am not sure how to best work that into what you have provided, Brustopher, but I do feel that where we should be careful that we do not inadvertently "straw man" the claims by casting them too narrowly. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the suggestions and feedback above, I've tried to integrate most of it into the lede. From what I can see while there are issues with specific sentences and phrases, nobody seems to be opposed to the lede in general. With this in mind, would anyone oppose implementing this as the new lede? I think it will be easier to solve the smaller problems once the lede's in the article and other people can edit it. Brustopher ( talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I cannot support the change at present, but some changes could bring me around. Most crucially, the reference to "those critical of Quinn" is not acceptable. What possible reason could these anonymous trolls have to criticize Quinn’s romantic life, much less to organize themselves in response to it? In addition, iIt's not just "press commentators" who dismiss the purported ethics concerns, but pretty much all commentators. "Largely anonymous" is silly and really ought be corrected, and what is the precise difference between a "set goal" and a plain old "goal"? It's not just that Gamergate has often been defined by harassment: it’s always and exclusively defined by harassment, as there is no other notable action of this conspiracy. Whether "Gamergate supporters" have actually attempted to disassociate themselves from harassment is very much open to doubt, because Gamergate supporters are anonymous: "Purported Gamergate supporters" or some similar construction would be accurate. A number of other changes are needed to accord with conventions in style and grammar, but these could be retrofitted. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
An action that claims to be performed by Gamergate, such as a Twitter threat that uses Gamergate hashtags or otherwise claims to be from Gamergate, may safely be attributed to Gamergate unless we have reason to think it a forgery. But self-serving statements do give us every reason to doubt them, and these statements have no other purpose than to improve Gamergate's public relations. We can ascribe specific opinions to specific people, of course: "John Smith, writing in the Gotham Herald, interviews a source who said he supported Gamergate and liked waffles." It is not hard to judge the preponderant consensus of the reliable sources, which overwhelmingly dismiss Gamergate's fig-leaf claims of concerns over ethics as spurious. An isolated source or two have argued sensibly as you say that, while Gamergate's accusations were spurious, actual problems might exist. I myself have been strongly critical of software criticism in writing that started at least a year before Gamergate. None of this validates any of Gamergate's spurious arguments, to which we must not afford WP:UNDUE weight. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The minor questions
The show stopper Has Adam Baldwin criticized Quinn? I recall (Redacted), but that’s not criticism. I don’t recall Baldwin writing criticism, and his American Spectator article doesn't criticize Quinn. In the context of the Zoepost, which is the context we're discussing, I see no grounds on which criticism would be appropriate or defensible. But if someone specific can be shown to have criticized Quinn, I would not object to specifically reporting that. However, we cannot condone the notion that Quinn’s actions can reasonably be considered censurable in this matter, because in our society adults are free to arrange their private affairs as they please. Some fringe voices (who have been very amply represented on this page) do believe that women ought not to be permitted to arrange their private affairs, and those fringe sentiments have excused endless speculation and idle gossip here about Ms. Quinn’s sex life and various Wikipedians’ opinions thereon. We must cease to tolerate this, now and forever. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Adam Baldwin ... tweeted links to some YouTube videos critical of Quinnper Reason, but the categorisation of the videos in the redacted material was not supported by reliable sourcing. I stand by my redactions of WP:BLP violating material throughout multiple articles and my work at WP:BLPN, and suggest that my edit history shows that they have been made without fear, favour or interest. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
"Alan Boe, a self-described "small government conservative libertarian" tweeted links to videos critical of the use of the DMCA to takedown YouTube videos, and of associated media blackouts; likening this to the cover-up associated with the Watergate Affair."- Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
However, we cannot condone the notion that Quinn’s actions can reasonably be considered censurable in this matter, because in our society adults are free to arrange their private affairs as they please. Some fringe voices (who have been very amply represented on this page) do believe that women ought not to be permitted to arrange their private affairs, and those fringe sentiments have excused endless speculation and idle gossip here about Ms. Quinn’s sex life and various Wikipedians’ opinions thereon. We must cease to tolerate this, now and forever.seems to be shadowboxing. I've expressed several times that I think Quinn and especially the Zoe Post are given excessive weight compared to issues of more enduring encyclopedic interest, and in return been accused of trying to whitewash. Rhoark ( talk) 22:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
So where are we? ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 00:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I don’t think we really need an RFC. We need some language tweaks -- one in particular. The showstopper is Those critical of Quinn organised themselves under the twitter hashtag Gamergate.
My objection, which I believe is cogent, is that this phrase assumes that such criticism of Quinn was sane and reasonable. To "criticize" an adult for their romantic choices is absurd and was despicable, and the continued effort to do exactly this in Wikipedia is absurd and despicable when it is intentional, and is at best very unfortunate when accidental. Others will compose formulations more satisfactory to our friends from Gamergate than I, but let me show some general approaches:
I think RfC at this particular moment is not in the interests of the project. I think you may agree if you consider the newly-opened and bitterly-divisive ArbCom case, the Atlantic and Signpost articles, and all the resurgent activity at Gamergate’s various headquarters; this is not the ideal atmosphere. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Amy Pascal Wins Zoe Quinn’s Gamergate Memoir ‘Crash Override’. So We're getting GamerGate: The Movie in the future… I got nothing. GamerPro64 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The talk page is for discussing specific improvements to the article. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 02:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In reading the article, it came off to me as bias, in the favour of the feminism viewpoint. A friend of mine agreed. Please discuss here. Spilia4 ( talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
|
One thing I'm interested in adding to the article is material on forerunners to the Gamergate activists. My impression is that many of the talking points used by Gamergate activists are not new - a lot were used when conventions started to move against booth babes wearing skimpy clothes and other demeaning treatment of women, and my feeling is that in retrospect that controversy can be very much seen as a forerunner of the Gamergate movement even though it got much less publicity at the time.
So does anybody know about any reputable sources that do link Gamergate with preceding sexism controversies among gamers? (Veteran readers may recall that I made additions to the article on this topic but they got deleted, I think not altogether unfairly, with the argument used that while the sources I used were reputable the relevance was debatable since none of them actually mentioned Gamergate.) Blythwood ( talk) 18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
In the discussion on the lede above, I had mentioned that the article is supposed to be written in American English, but I'm now not sure that's the case. We seem to have a mixture of both American and British English (and perhaps others?). As far as I can tell, the article was fixed at British English by this edit by User:Koncorde, but I welcome others to double check. While it seems that most of the individuals and publications involved are American, I'm not sure there's a strong national tie to justify switching to American English. I'm indifferent, really, but the article should be consistent throughout. Opinions? Woodroar ( talk) 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. I'm glad everyone is having a laugh over this. Seriously, it brings me great joy. Carry on! Woodroar ( talk) 02:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/canadian-pictured-as-paris-terrorist-in-suspected-gamergate-smear ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 00:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This topic cannot make any contribution to the encyclopedia until the end of March, 2016. It has been discussed at great length, and the freeze was intended to end re-raising the question. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Lord knows I don't support gamergate ideas in any way, and I think that doxing, harrasment, etc is despicable. But Gamergate is clearly a social movement and not a 'controversy'. This page should start describing it as such. Apologies if this is re-arguing old debates, but really, for WP:NPV's sake, it must change. LK ( talk) 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Here: [2]
Not sure there's anything to be done about it just now, but the fact that it involved some fairly big European media indicated to me it's worth some awareness. Thanks. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is a table with what many recent sources say GG is about. "no clear quote" = no description, nothing concise, whole article, or something else that makes a quote difficult.
Most of this is from the SXSW set of articles.
ugly long table is ugly
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.lazygamer.net/features/editorial-features/kotaku-calls-out-blacklisting-gamergate-goes-insane/ ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph says Gamergate is a controversy without defining the pro- and anti- sides. Then suddenly the article refers to "Gamergate's ethics concerns" and "Gamergate's supporters", implying that gamergate is one of the sides of the controversy. This contradicts that the term "gamergate" refers to the whole controversy of the pro- and anti- sides. This is confusing.
To put neutral labels, you can't start out as "The XYZ controversy concerns skub and skad." then talk about pro-XYZ and anti-XYZ. It's not clear whether pro-XYZ means pro-skub or anti-skub.
Compare to the from abortion controversy article, which has a very clear lead. To borrow from that article, it should be immediately defined in the second sentence what are pro-gamergate and anti-gamergate. It is optional whether to use loaded terms like pro-life or pro-choice but if there is a real controversy then there needs to be a clear definition of what are the goals of the two sides, preferably in their own words.
(An aside: Also taking the example of the abortion controversy article, a lead is much more informative if it is shorter. If the millenia-long abortion debate can be summarized in two consise paragraphs, I highly doubt that gamergate is so intricate and deep that it requires four.) -- Nanite ( talk) 22:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, to summarize what I saw of gamergate (at least since I became aware of it), I politely disagree that it is a controversy. Gamergate started out referring to a scandal in the computer gaming subculture (in many senses of the word "scandal"), however by now it has become, roughly, some sort of general hashtag/symbol/flag for online misogyny or antifeminist sentiment (again, in both senses of the word: against specific feminists, and against feminism in general).
I've seen it described somewhere as only a misogynist movement but I doubt it's so simple. Actually I don't think it's even possible to call gamergate a movement at all, i.e., I don't think you can say "gamergate supporters believed X" or "statements out of gamergate" or even imply "gamergate led a harassment campaign against Zoe Quinn". It was just a big scandal involving huge anonymous angry mobs and a few high-profile people, involving the usual shit flying everywhere that goes with any internet fight. Most of the shit was directed at women.
My suggestion would be to first define gamergate concretely, in past tense (Gamergate WAS a scandal in 2014... ). The second sentence would then state concisely the trigger of the scandal, i.e., whatever was alleged about Zoe Quinn; possibly the scandal can be extended to include early responses to the Zoe Post as the early responses seem to be part of the lore (it seemed to have become famous from Streisand effect, do I remember wrong?). Third sentence would note the greater hubbub around the scandal and the major consequences, which make gamergate notable: harassment, people losing jobs, other serious consequences and transformations, etc.
Perhaps there can be a second paragraph saying something like "Nowadays, the gamergate label is linked to XYZ." where XYZ is whatever is the current usage. No third paragraph. To be honest I am not sure what is precisely the current usage as I'm never been active on twitter and I just see bits and bops coming out. -- Nanite ( talk) 10:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just now reading various recent retrospective articles about gamergate that came out in the last few months ( example). If someone asked me to sum it up in an encyclopedic tone, I would say the following:
Artw is completely right, it doesn't make sense to attempt to describe the current "sides" of gamergate in the lead. The only accurate description would be "the two sides of gamergate hate each other" which isn't very informative to the reader. One side is defined by fear of the evil Gamergaters and their secret agenda, and the other side is defined by the fear of the evil social justice warriors and their secret agenda. It's funny in a way, but I would hope that nobody editing this article has strong feelings along these lines. (If you're curious, my feeling about the whole thing is "I'm too old for this shit.") -- Nanite ( talk) 11:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You were trolled. I honestly find it astounding you took such a hilariously bad and over-the-top meme seriously and are using that as material here in your fight for what you consider right for the article. Marteau ( talk) 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)The author claims to be a special forces operative in the US Navy, though his inability to spell “guerrilla” suggests that claim might not be entirely reliable.
Just like every other movement, Gamergate has been defined more by its actions and perceptions than its stated goals, which is reflected is most reliable sources. The Columbia Journalism Review just published an analysis that discusses the issue more in-depth. It's worth a read, if you read nothing else about the topic. The CJR article succinctly outlines how Gamergate identifies itself ("Gamergate believers see themselves as consumer watchdogs of a games press that’s too cozy with the industry it covers; many posting under the tag appear to be soldiers in a culture war that extends far offline") the initial controversy ("The hashtag drew mainstream media attention last year for reactionary trolling and mob-like harassment online, aimed mostly at feminist writers and critics") the ongoing coverage ("A number of top journalists in the field declined to speak to CJR on the record because they feared validating Gamergate as something more than a collection of trolls") a quote about the goals ("Some of it is really focused on reforming game journalism, some are very focused on their image in the mainstream media. And then some are very angry with academics, with people like me, who they view as trying to inject feminist critiques into gaming culture") and a quote as to why Gamergate has been so difficult to define ("I think that there is next to zero interest among the press in establishing the facts around Gamergate, and quite a lot of pressure *against* establishing a factual record...It has made any sort of public discussion around Gamergate impossible"). As Rhoark did before me I'll also say thank you to the new editors for wading into this topic. This is an often-hostile talk page, and the current article is a barely readable hyperbolic mess. Hopefully now you have an idea of how it got that way, and maybe the fortitude to try to help us fix it. ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 02:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A rather interesting article on GamerGate being, as the article puts it, "strange bedfellows" with the Society of Professional Journalists. Why some SPJ leaders are engaging Gamergate. Talks a bit more in-depth about "Airplay", the event that got a bomb threat that resulted in a neighborhood evacuation, some quotes from Michael Koretzky, organizer of the event, James Fudge from GamePolitics.com, Mia Consalvo from DiGRA and soon to be president of the SPJ Lynn Walsh. GamerPro64 05:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Written by Arthur Chu, and located here: [3]
As usual, I don't think this demands any immediate action on the article. Put here more as a general interest note. Thanks. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This has become unproductive. Please confine your comments to article content, not personal comments about other editors or the authors of potential sources. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The post above is very close to a personal attack on Arthur Chu, and its redactions should be carefully considered. The argument put forward by its author is that a dramatic interpretation in 2015 cannot refer to contemporary events because it is based on a story written in 2001. That argument will surprise students of Shakespeare, but perhaps the author was out sick that day, or busy playing games, or fell asleep. In any case, no one familiar with literary criticism would consider it ludicrous, and no one familiar with Gamergate's place in media discourse would demand "facts" to back it up the notoriety which this criminal conspiracy has gained. U. S. Representatives can refer to Gamergate’s crimes in press releases, confident that all readers will understand the reference; Netflix can certainly do the same. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
|
moved to meta talk page ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 06:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sorry to bump back so soon but I found this amusing reddit thread about me, and couldn't resist. I'm just a regular old dude, and people think I'm going to get whacked from simply commenting on a talk page? Naw, man. But on a serious note, one user said "I'll be surprised if he lasts more than 2 days" and this was perfectly true, I only spent 2 days discussing, when I came here a week and a half ago. Hmm, why is that? I thought about this a lot, and I would like to share my viewpoint as I think some understanding will lead to a better article, in the future. There seems to be a general concern about incoming editors here being discouraged. Yes, that is true in my case. Although I avoided any serious confrontation, I got a clear sense that the battle for this article is not over (and a brief examination of recent talk page archives confirms this). This is not a fun place to edit unless you love bickering all day long. I have no desire to enter wikipedia politics and so there is absolutely no way I am going to try to help here, until the combative editors are gone. I am sure there are many more silent editors who would love to help but feel precisely like I feel. The armies have left but a few determined snipers remain and reign; the city still lay in ruins and the regular folk await the day they can reenter. -- Nanite ( talk) 23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
|
This
is simply wrong. The sentence reads: "But over the course of several months, he described to me how he painstakingly crafted “The Zoe Post,” a post that detonated with ruthless force and efficiency, for maximum pain and harm."
. The phrase "described to me" refers to the first part of the sentence ("he painstakingly crafted..."), not the second part, which is a rather poetic description of the effects by this particular reporter. I have reverted it. Feel free to rephrase it correctly.
More generally, I would argue against including the Boston Magazine description ("maximum pain and harm") as well as the "rambling" NYT description. Both of these descriptions are simply unflattering comments by individual reporters, not at all typical in sources. Mentioning that the post was a humungous 9,000 words is enoug. And that all shit broke loose after its publication is also described in the section. There is no need to gratuitously and selectively quote unflattering comments about it. Most sources, simply comment on the length and its nature (describing his relationship with Quinn using private text, facebook messages, emails etc.). Then they go on to note that subsequently all hell broke loose etc., without any implication that this guy started it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not one reporter; it's the consensus of reliable sources, here including two gold-plated sources-- the New York Times and the reporter with the best access to the subject. MarkBernstein ( talk) 11:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I still believe my reading is correct. I do not think the "but" in the sentence is superfluous. The "but" in the sentence refers to the reporter saying that he doesn't believe that the purpose of the document was to warn people about his ex-girlfriend. The subsequent paragraphs detail the aspects of the post which the reporter believes to be inconsistent with the claim. See, for instance, the later paragraphs and up to the one starting with "Others who later read the post saw something much more deliberate and malicious..."
. If Gjoni actually said that "he intended the post to cause maximum pain and harm", there would be no need to resort to a "he said/she said" format - we have from the horse's mouth that it was deliberate and malicious. In the sentence itself, the comma, and the switch to a different subject, "a post that..." is a clear indication, in my mind that he is referring to the effect of the post, not an intention by Gjoni. If the statement was meant to read the other way, the reporter would have made Gjoni the subject of the infliction of "maximum pain and harm". Reporters are skilled writers - it's their job after all - they know how to make a sentence ambiguous or clear if they want.
Kingsindian
♝
♚ 13:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
(On another point, I read Brustopher's survey, and "rambling" seems to be decently supported. I have made some changes to my proposed text in the section above.)
You write "As for the he said/she said, that clearly seems to me about reactions to the publishing of the Zoe post, and not necessarily authorial intent."
. Let me quote the passage in full:
Others who later read the post saw something much more deliberate and malicious. Jesse Singal, an editor at NYMag.com, said it clearly “followed a script” of “these sad, specific ideas that a segment of the gaming community has about women being duplicitous and breaking men’s hearts.” Slate’s Arthur Chu told me, “He’s an articulate, well-spoken guy who knows how to put together something on the Internet. That’s the kind of weapon guys like that have…the ‘crazy bitch’ story. It’s a very potent trope to use…. It’s a very nasty, very calculating train of thought, and it worked.”
I may or may not get all grammatical nuances, but I find it impossible to believe that this passage is not talking about intent. "deliberate and malicious", "followed a script", "knows how to put together", "nasty, very calculating". These all refer to intent. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
"I felt it was healthy to get it out there…. What harm would it do to get his feelings out?". This is what I said is a "he said/she said" device. But why would anyone resort to this device when Gjoni already said what the intent was? It is definitely not quoting the "reactions of community" because chronologically, the reaction of the community comes after this passage (see the subsequent passages). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Gjoni's reaction to the Boston Magazine piece [4] [5] is essential reading for putting this source in context. When an interview subject says these kinds of things about their own interview, it can't possibly be treated as a reliable source for the interviewee's statements. BuzzFeed of all places is a better source than "gold-plated" Boston Magazine on how Gjoni represents himself, [6] as also commented on by Mary Sue [7]. The Adam Smith Institute [8] also links this surprising perspective on Gjoni [9] from someone who's gained international reputation as an advocate for trigger warnings. This is an area with a variety of perspectives that could perhaps be explored better. Rhoark ( talk) 02:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark makes some very good points, but I wish to reiterate the basic point, which should not be lost. Gjoni's intent is manifestly irrelevant: whether or not he intended to cause harm or not is irrelevant to the hell that broke loose afterwards. A single, unflattering and ambiguous judgement about his intent should not be presented in the article as such. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
moved to meta page ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 06:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Another editor returns after an absence of many years to edit war the lede, again leaving an edit summary that this article needs to be a lot less bias and then this article is Bias. Wikipedia has a neutral policy to say Gamergate is only about sexism is presenting only one side especially at the beginning of the article. What is it with Gamergate supporters and participles? Is this a common thing somewhere? Anywhere? A secret code? A dog whistle of some sort? It really doesn’t strike me as a common usage error; there must be an explanation. What am I missing? MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
|
http://www.glamour.com/inspired/2015/12/glamour-survey-online-bullying ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we still need to wait until SXSW to write about the cancellation/uncancellation/day of/moved panel part of it all? ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
list the sources so far (note this is not the same list as in the archive though it includes that list):
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
{ping|Lightlowemon|Gamaliel} is there a reason to remove the pp-move-indef ? ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I will never understand Gamergate, but can I ask why in the "History" section, the relationship between Quinn and Nathan Grayson is called "allegation"? Sure, the newspaper sources at the time use "allegation", but as subsequently made clear by the Kotaku source, the "allegation" is simply a fact and is disputed by no one. The important point to make clear is that the relationship started after the gaming review appeared, so there was no conflict of interest. We are now sufficiently distant from the events that we can write about facts, and not just allegations. I was told one of the tips for good writing is to clothe the naked "this". The sentence starting with "This was quickly proven to be false"
is needlessly unclear and awkward.
Kingsindian
♝
♚ 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
In August 2014, Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, published the "Zoe Post", a 9,425-word blog post that quoted from personal chat logs, emails, and text messages to describe their relationship. The post, described as "rambling" in the NYT<nyt ref>, complained, among other things, that Quinn entered a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the Gawker Media video game website Kotaku. The post was linked on 4chan, where some claimed that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest. This claim was false, as Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games; his piece concerning her was published before their relationship began.
Changes:
Issues I am not happy about, but probably are not resolvable:
I have implemented my suggestion above. Feel free to revert/discuss. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately PeterTheFourth in their rewrite here has missed the point of my edit. As I tried to explain in detail above, we are now one and a half years from the incidents. It now makes no sense to write a "he said/she said" version of events. The fact that the editor of Kotaku wrote the article is irrelevant, so we don't have to write "according to so and so". We can just state it as a fact, because the fact is important, and nobody doubts it. One can copyedit without changing the meaning of the text. One also does not need to write "erroneously" twice. It is sufficient to describe the claim in one sentence and debunk it in the next. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
From Mediaite, NY Times, CNN Fall For Fake Eyewitness Blaming San Bernardino on GamerGate. Gotta love the Mainstream Media. GamerPro64 17:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Please only discuss how to improve the article. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 05:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 17:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a40504/gender-video-games-research/ ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I know I've brought this up, and I'm still looking for RS to support something to add, but here's GG again being used as an example of bad behavior: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-is-the-gamergate-of-republican-politics/ Also, I think the Trump tweet is interesting. ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 17:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Please remember the main page is under WP:1RR. ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 11:40, 17 December 2015 (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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
Ok finally have enough time to write a proper suggestion! Here we go! Apologies for my terrible sentence structuring skills:
The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014. It concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. It is most widely known for a harassment campaign against several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. Gamergate began when a former boyfriend of Quinn wrote a lengthy disparaging blog post about her, leading others to falsely accuse her of entering a relationship with a journalist in exchange for positive coverage. Those endorsing the blog post and spreading such accusations against Quinn organized themselves under the Twitter hashtag Gamergate, as well as on IRC channels and websites such as reddit, 4chan and 8chan. Harassment against Quinn and others was coordinated through these discussion forums, including doxing, threats of rape, and death threats. Many of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag argue that they are campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry. Most commentators dismissed Gamergate's ethics concerns, and condemned misogynistic behavior within it.
Gamergate's supporters are largely anonymous, having no official leaders or spokespeople and no single united manifesto. Statements coming out of Gamergate have been inconsistent and contradictory making it difficult for commentators to identify any set goals and motives. As a result of this Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters have committed. Gamergate supporters have attempted to publicly dissociate themselves from misogyny and harassment. Such attempts have often been dismissed as insincere and being for the purpose of improving the group's public image.
The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition, social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism and social justice ideologies on video game culture. As a result Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Most of Gamergate's journalistic ethics concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social critics. They argue that this has resulted in a press which is overly feminist and anti-gamer. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. Such concerns led users of the hashtag to launch email campaigns targeting firms advertising in publications of which they disapproved, asking them to withdraw their advertisements.
Responses within the games industry to Gamergate have largely been negative. The heads of groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Entertainment Software Association, Electronic Arts and Sony Computer Entertainment have strongly condemned Gamergate harassment. Intel, who temporarily withdrew their adverts from gaming news site Gamasutra as the result of a Gamergate email campaign, later pledged $300 million to support a "Diversity in Technology" program. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside to industry to focus more on better methods of tackling online harassment. U.S. Representative ;;Katherine Clark from Massachusetts has campaigned for a stronger government response to online harassment, gaining the support of Congress. Within the industry organizations such as the Crash Override Network and the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative have been founded to provide support to those facing online harassment.
Isn't it just beautiful? Brustopher ( talk) 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Most of Gamergate's journalistic ethics concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social criticsis not verified, and likely not verifiable. Reading broadly, and with a focus on pro-Gamergate sources, it appears that the ethics concerns are multiple - but if I had to attempt to categorise them it would be a) COI / nepotism (journalists covering friends, etc without disclosure), b) collusion (as outlined above), c) progressive advocacy journalism (gaming journalists focusing largely or exclusively on content pursuing a progressive agenda). The third of these does not require collusion, COI or other corruption, but is still firmly a journalism ethics issue - as previously detailed eloquently and at length by MarkBernstein on this Talk page. I am not sure how to best work that into what you have provided, Brustopher, but I do feel that where we should be careful that we do not inadvertently "straw man" the claims by casting them too narrowly. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the suggestions and feedback above, I've tried to integrate most of it into the lede. From what I can see while there are issues with specific sentences and phrases, nobody seems to be opposed to the lede in general. With this in mind, would anyone oppose implementing this as the new lede? I think it will be easier to solve the smaller problems once the lede's in the article and other people can edit it. Brustopher ( talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I cannot support the change at present, but some changes could bring me around. Most crucially, the reference to "those critical of Quinn" is not acceptable. What possible reason could these anonymous trolls have to criticize Quinn’s romantic life, much less to organize themselves in response to it? In addition, iIt's not just "press commentators" who dismiss the purported ethics concerns, but pretty much all commentators. "Largely anonymous" is silly and really ought be corrected, and what is the precise difference between a "set goal" and a plain old "goal"? It's not just that Gamergate has often been defined by harassment: it’s always and exclusively defined by harassment, as there is no other notable action of this conspiracy. Whether "Gamergate supporters" have actually attempted to disassociate themselves from harassment is very much open to doubt, because Gamergate supporters are anonymous: "Purported Gamergate supporters" or some similar construction would be accurate. A number of other changes are needed to accord with conventions in style and grammar, but these could be retrofitted. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
An action that claims to be performed by Gamergate, such as a Twitter threat that uses Gamergate hashtags or otherwise claims to be from Gamergate, may safely be attributed to Gamergate unless we have reason to think it a forgery. But self-serving statements do give us every reason to doubt them, and these statements have no other purpose than to improve Gamergate's public relations. We can ascribe specific opinions to specific people, of course: "John Smith, writing in the Gotham Herald, interviews a source who said he supported Gamergate and liked waffles." It is not hard to judge the preponderant consensus of the reliable sources, which overwhelmingly dismiss Gamergate's fig-leaf claims of concerns over ethics as spurious. An isolated source or two have argued sensibly as you say that, while Gamergate's accusations were spurious, actual problems might exist. I myself have been strongly critical of software criticism in writing that started at least a year before Gamergate. None of this validates any of Gamergate's spurious arguments, to which we must not afford WP:UNDUE weight. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The minor questions
The show stopper Has Adam Baldwin criticized Quinn? I recall (Redacted), but that’s not criticism. I don’t recall Baldwin writing criticism, and his American Spectator article doesn't criticize Quinn. In the context of the Zoepost, which is the context we're discussing, I see no grounds on which criticism would be appropriate or defensible. But if someone specific can be shown to have criticized Quinn, I would not object to specifically reporting that. However, we cannot condone the notion that Quinn’s actions can reasonably be considered censurable in this matter, because in our society adults are free to arrange their private affairs as they please. Some fringe voices (who have been very amply represented on this page) do believe that women ought not to be permitted to arrange their private affairs, and those fringe sentiments have excused endless speculation and idle gossip here about Ms. Quinn’s sex life and various Wikipedians’ opinions thereon. We must cease to tolerate this, now and forever. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Adam Baldwin ... tweeted links to some YouTube videos critical of Quinnper Reason, but the categorisation of the videos in the redacted material was not supported by reliable sourcing. I stand by my redactions of WP:BLP violating material throughout multiple articles and my work at WP:BLPN, and suggest that my edit history shows that they have been made without fear, favour or interest. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
"Alan Boe, a self-described "small government conservative libertarian" tweeted links to videos critical of the use of the DMCA to takedown YouTube videos, and of associated media blackouts; likening this to the cover-up associated with the Watergate Affair."- Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
However, we cannot condone the notion that Quinn’s actions can reasonably be considered censurable in this matter, because in our society adults are free to arrange their private affairs as they please. Some fringe voices (who have been very amply represented on this page) do believe that women ought not to be permitted to arrange their private affairs, and those fringe sentiments have excused endless speculation and idle gossip here about Ms. Quinn’s sex life and various Wikipedians’ opinions thereon. We must cease to tolerate this, now and forever.seems to be shadowboxing. I've expressed several times that I think Quinn and especially the Zoe Post are given excessive weight compared to issues of more enduring encyclopedic interest, and in return been accused of trying to whitewash. Rhoark ( talk) 22:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
So where are we? ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 00:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I don’t think we really need an RFC. We need some language tweaks -- one in particular. The showstopper is Those critical of Quinn organised themselves under the twitter hashtag Gamergate.
My objection, which I believe is cogent, is that this phrase assumes that such criticism of Quinn was sane and reasonable. To "criticize" an adult for their romantic choices is absurd and was despicable, and the continued effort to do exactly this in Wikipedia is absurd and despicable when it is intentional, and is at best very unfortunate when accidental. Others will compose formulations more satisfactory to our friends from Gamergate than I, but let me show some general approaches:
I think RfC at this particular moment is not in the interests of the project. I think you may agree if you consider the newly-opened and bitterly-divisive ArbCom case, the Atlantic and Signpost articles, and all the resurgent activity at Gamergate’s various headquarters; this is not the ideal atmosphere. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Amy Pascal Wins Zoe Quinn’s Gamergate Memoir ‘Crash Override’. So We're getting GamerGate: The Movie in the future… I got nothing. GamerPro64 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The talk page is for discussing specific improvements to the article. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 02:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In reading the article, it came off to me as bias, in the favour of the feminism viewpoint. A friend of mine agreed. Please discuss here. Spilia4 ( talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
|
One thing I'm interested in adding to the article is material on forerunners to the Gamergate activists. My impression is that many of the talking points used by Gamergate activists are not new - a lot were used when conventions started to move against booth babes wearing skimpy clothes and other demeaning treatment of women, and my feeling is that in retrospect that controversy can be very much seen as a forerunner of the Gamergate movement even though it got much less publicity at the time.
So does anybody know about any reputable sources that do link Gamergate with preceding sexism controversies among gamers? (Veteran readers may recall that I made additions to the article on this topic but they got deleted, I think not altogether unfairly, with the argument used that while the sources I used were reputable the relevance was debatable since none of them actually mentioned Gamergate.) Blythwood ( talk) 18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
In the discussion on the lede above, I had mentioned that the article is supposed to be written in American English, but I'm now not sure that's the case. We seem to have a mixture of both American and British English (and perhaps others?). As far as I can tell, the article was fixed at British English by this edit by User:Koncorde, but I welcome others to double check. While it seems that most of the individuals and publications involved are American, I'm not sure there's a strong national tie to justify switching to American English. I'm indifferent, really, but the article should be consistent throughout. Opinions? Woodroar ( talk) 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. I'm glad everyone is having a laugh over this. Seriously, it brings me great joy. Carry on! Woodroar ( talk) 02:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/canadian-pictured-as-paris-terrorist-in-suspected-gamergate-smear ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 00:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This topic cannot make any contribution to the encyclopedia until the end of March, 2016. It has been discussed at great length, and the freeze was intended to end re-raising the question. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Lord knows I don't support gamergate ideas in any way, and I think that doxing, harrasment, etc is despicable. But Gamergate is clearly a social movement and not a 'controversy'. This page should start describing it as such. Apologies if this is re-arguing old debates, but really, for WP:NPV's sake, it must change. LK ( talk) 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Here: [2]
Not sure there's anything to be done about it just now, but the fact that it involved some fairly big European media indicated to me it's worth some awareness. Thanks. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is a table with what many recent sources say GG is about. "no clear quote" = no description, nothing concise, whole article, or something else that makes a quote difficult.
Most of this is from the SXSW set of articles.
ugly long table is ugly
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.lazygamer.net/features/editorial-features/kotaku-calls-out-blacklisting-gamergate-goes-insane/ ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph says Gamergate is a controversy without defining the pro- and anti- sides. Then suddenly the article refers to "Gamergate's ethics concerns" and "Gamergate's supporters", implying that gamergate is one of the sides of the controversy. This contradicts that the term "gamergate" refers to the whole controversy of the pro- and anti- sides. This is confusing.
To put neutral labels, you can't start out as "The XYZ controversy concerns skub and skad." then talk about pro-XYZ and anti-XYZ. It's not clear whether pro-XYZ means pro-skub or anti-skub.
Compare to the from abortion controversy article, which has a very clear lead. To borrow from that article, it should be immediately defined in the second sentence what are pro-gamergate and anti-gamergate. It is optional whether to use loaded terms like pro-life or pro-choice but if there is a real controversy then there needs to be a clear definition of what are the goals of the two sides, preferably in their own words.
(An aside: Also taking the example of the abortion controversy article, a lead is much more informative if it is shorter. If the millenia-long abortion debate can be summarized in two consise paragraphs, I highly doubt that gamergate is so intricate and deep that it requires four.) -- Nanite ( talk) 22:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, to summarize what I saw of gamergate (at least since I became aware of it), I politely disagree that it is a controversy. Gamergate started out referring to a scandal in the computer gaming subculture (in many senses of the word "scandal"), however by now it has become, roughly, some sort of general hashtag/symbol/flag for online misogyny or antifeminist sentiment (again, in both senses of the word: against specific feminists, and against feminism in general).
I've seen it described somewhere as only a misogynist movement but I doubt it's so simple. Actually I don't think it's even possible to call gamergate a movement at all, i.e., I don't think you can say "gamergate supporters believed X" or "statements out of gamergate" or even imply "gamergate led a harassment campaign against Zoe Quinn". It was just a big scandal involving huge anonymous angry mobs and a few high-profile people, involving the usual shit flying everywhere that goes with any internet fight. Most of the shit was directed at women.
My suggestion would be to first define gamergate concretely, in past tense (Gamergate WAS a scandal in 2014... ). The second sentence would then state concisely the trigger of the scandal, i.e., whatever was alleged about Zoe Quinn; possibly the scandal can be extended to include early responses to the Zoe Post as the early responses seem to be part of the lore (it seemed to have become famous from Streisand effect, do I remember wrong?). Third sentence would note the greater hubbub around the scandal and the major consequences, which make gamergate notable: harassment, people losing jobs, other serious consequences and transformations, etc.
Perhaps there can be a second paragraph saying something like "Nowadays, the gamergate label is linked to XYZ." where XYZ is whatever is the current usage. No third paragraph. To be honest I am not sure what is precisely the current usage as I'm never been active on twitter and I just see bits and bops coming out. -- Nanite ( talk) 10:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just now reading various recent retrospective articles about gamergate that came out in the last few months ( example). If someone asked me to sum it up in an encyclopedic tone, I would say the following:
Artw is completely right, it doesn't make sense to attempt to describe the current "sides" of gamergate in the lead. The only accurate description would be "the two sides of gamergate hate each other" which isn't very informative to the reader. One side is defined by fear of the evil Gamergaters and their secret agenda, and the other side is defined by the fear of the evil social justice warriors and their secret agenda. It's funny in a way, but I would hope that nobody editing this article has strong feelings along these lines. (If you're curious, my feeling about the whole thing is "I'm too old for this shit.") -- Nanite ( talk) 11:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You were trolled. I honestly find it astounding you took such a hilariously bad and over-the-top meme seriously and are using that as material here in your fight for what you consider right for the article. Marteau ( talk) 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)The author claims to be a special forces operative in the US Navy, though his inability to spell “guerrilla” suggests that claim might not be entirely reliable.
Just like every other movement, Gamergate has been defined more by its actions and perceptions than its stated goals, which is reflected is most reliable sources. The Columbia Journalism Review just published an analysis that discusses the issue more in-depth. It's worth a read, if you read nothing else about the topic. The CJR article succinctly outlines how Gamergate identifies itself ("Gamergate believers see themselves as consumer watchdogs of a games press that’s too cozy with the industry it covers; many posting under the tag appear to be soldiers in a culture war that extends far offline") the initial controversy ("The hashtag drew mainstream media attention last year for reactionary trolling and mob-like harassment online, aimed mostly at feminist writers and critics") the ongoing coverage ("A number of top journalists in the field declined to speak to CJR on the record because they feared validating Gamergate as something more than a collection of trolls") a quote about the goals ("Some of it is really focused on reforming game journalism, some are very focused on their image in the mainstream media. And then some are very angry with academics, with people like me, who they view as trying to inject feminist critiques into gaming culture") and a quote as to why Gamergate has been so difficult to define ("I think that there is next to zero interest among the press in establishing the facts around Gamergate, and quite a lot of pressure *against* establishing a factual record...It has made any sort of public discussion around Gamergate impossible"). As Rhoark did before me I'll also say thank you to the new editors for wading into this topic. This is an often-hostile talk page, and the current article is a barely readable hyperbolic mess. Hopefully now you have an idea of how it got that way, and maybe the fortitude to try to help us fix it. ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 02:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A rather interesting article on GamerGate being, as the article puts it, "strange bedfellows" with the Society of Professional Journalists. Why some SPJ leaders are engaging Gamergate. Talks a bit more in-depth about "Airplay", the event that got a bomb threat that resulted in a neighborhood evacuation, some quotes from Michael Koretzky, organizer of the event, James Fudge from GamePolitics.com, Mia Consalvo from DiGRA and soon to be president of the SPJ Lynn Walsh. GamerPro64 05:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Written by Arthur Chu, and located here: [3]
As usual, I don't think this demands any immediate action on the article. Put here more as a general interest note. Thanks. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This has become unproductive. Please confine your comments to article content, not personal comments about other editors or the authors of potential sources. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The post above is very close to a personal attack on Arthur Chu, and its redactions should be carefully considered. The argument put forward by its author is that a dramatic interpretation in 2015 cannot refer to contemporary events because it is based on a story written in 2001. That argument will surprise students of Shakespeare, but perhaps the author was out sick that day, or busy playing games, or fell asleep. In any case, no one familiar with literary criticism would consider it ludicrous, and no one familiar with Gamergate's place in media discourse would demand "facts" to back it up the notoriety which this criminal conspiracy has gained. U. S. Representatives can refer to Gamergate’s crimes in press releases, confident that all readers will understand the reference; Netflix can certainly do the same. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
|
moved to meta talk page ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 06:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sorry to bump back so soon but I found this amusing reddit thread about me, and couldn't resist. I'm just a regular old dude, and people think I'm going to get whacked from simply commenting on a talk page? Naw, man. But on a serious note, one user said "I'll be surprised if he lasts more than 2 days" and this was perfectly true, I only spent 2 days discussing, when I came here a week and a half ago. Hmm, why is that? I thought about this a lot, and I would like to share my viewpoint as I think some understanding will lead to a better article, in the future. There seems to be a general concern about incoming editors here being discouraged. Yes, that is true in my case. Although I avoided any serious confrontation, I got a clear sense that the battle for this article is not over (and a brief examination of recent talk page archives confirms this). This is not a fun place to edit unless you love bickering all day long. I have no desire to enter wikipedia politics and so there is absolutely no way I am going to try to help here, until the combative editors are gone. I am sure there are many more silent editors who would love to help but feel precisely like I feel. The armies have left but a few determined snipers remain and reign; the city still lay in ruins and the regular folk await the day they can reenter. -- Nanite ( talk) 23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
|
This
is simply wrong. The sentence reads: "But over the course of several months, he described to me how he painstakingly crafted “The Zoe Post,” a post that detonated with ruthless force and efficiency, for maximum pain and harm."
. The phrase "described to me" refers to the first part of the sentence ("he painstakingly crafted..."), not the second part, which is a rather poetic description of the effects by this particular reporter. I have reverted it. Feel free to rephrase it correctly.
More generally, I would argue against including the Boston Magazine description ("maximum pain and harm") as well as the "rambling" NYT description. Both of these descriptions are simply unflattering comments by individual reporters, not at all typical in sources. Mentioning that the post was a humungous 9,000 words is enoug. And that all shit broke loose after its publication is also described in the section. There is no need to gratuitously and selectively quote unflattering comments about it. Most sources, simply comment on the length and its nature (describing his relationship with Quinn using private text, facebook messages, emails etc.). Then they go on to note that subsequently all hell broke loose etc., without any implication that this guy started it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not one reporter; it's the consensus of reliable sources, here including two gold-plated sources-- the New York Times and the reporter with the best access to the subject. MarkBernstein ( talk) 11:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I still believe my reading is correct. I do not think the "but" in the sentence is superfluous. The "but" in the sentence refers to the reporter saying that he doesn't believe that the purpose of the document was to warn people about his ex-girlfriend. The subsequent paragraphs detail the aspects of the post which the reporter believes to be inconsistent with the claim. See, for instance, the later paragraphs and up to the one starting with "Others who later read the post saw something much more deliberate and malicious..."
. If Gjoni actually said that "he intended the post to cause maximum pain and harm", there would be no need to resort to a "he said/she said" format - we have from the horse's mouth that it was deliberate and malicious. In the sentence itself, the comma, and the switch to a different subject, "a post that..." is a clear indication, in my mind that he is referring to the effect of the post, not an intention by Gjoni. If the statement was meant to read the other way, the reporter would have made Gjoni the subject of the infliction of "maximum pain and harm". Reporters are skilled writers - it's their job after all - they know how to make a sentence ambiguous or clear if they want.
Kingsindian
♝
♚ 13:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
(On another point, I read Brustopher's survey, and "rambling" seems to be decently supported. I have made some changes to my proposed text in the section above.)
You write "As for the he said/she said, that clearly seems to me about reactions to the publishing of the Zoe post, and not necessarily authorial intent."
. Let me quote the passage in full:
Others who later read the post saw something much more deliberate and malicious. Jesse Singal, an editor at NYMag.com, said it clearly “followed a script” of “these sad, specific ideas that a segment of the gaming community has about women being duplicitous and breaking men’s hearts.” Slate’s Arthur Chu told me, “He’s an articulate, well-spoken guy who knows how to put together something on the Internet. That’s the kind of weapon guys like that have…the ‘crazy bitch’ story. It’s a very potent trope to use…. It’s a very nasty, very calculating train of thought, and it worked.”
I may or may not get all grammatical nuances, but I find it impossible to believe that this passage is not talking about intent. "deliberate and malicious", "followed a script", "knows how to put together", "nasty, very calculating". These all refer to intent. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
"I felt it was healthy to get it out there…. What harm would it do to get his feelings out?". This is what I said is a "he said/she said" device. But why would anyone resort to this device when Gjoni already said what the intent was? It is definitely not quoting the "reactions of community" because chronologically, the reaction of the community comes after this passage (see the subsequent passages). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Gjoni's reaction to the Boston Magazine piece [4] [5] is essential reading for putting this source in context. When an interview subject says these kinds of things about their own interview, it can't possibly be treated as a reliable source for the interviewee's statements. BuzzFeed of all places is a better source than "gold-plated" Boston Magazine on how Gjoni represents himself, [6] as also commented on by Mary Sue [7]. The Adam Smith Institute [8] also links this surprising perspective on Gjoni [9] from someone who's gained international reputation as an advocate for trigger warnings. This is an area with a variety of perspectives that could perhaps be explored better. Rhoark ( talk) 02:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark makes some very good points, but I wish to reiterate the basic point, which should not be lost. Gjoni's intent is manifestly irrelevant: whether or not he intended to cause harm or not is irrelevant to the hell that broke loose afterwards. A single, unflattering and ambiguous judgement about his intent should not be presented in the article as such. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
moved to meta page ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 06:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Another editor returns after an absence of many years to edit war the lede, again leaving an edit summary that this article needs to be a lot less bias and then this article is Bias. Wikipedia has a neutral policy to say Gamergate is only about sexism is presenting only one side especially at the beginning of the article. What is it with Gamergate supporters and participles? Is this a common thing somewhere? Anywhere? A secret code? A dog whistle of some sort? It really doesn’t strike me as a common usage error; there must be an explanation. What am I missing? MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
|
http://www.glamour.com/inspired/2015/12/glamour-survey-online-bullying ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we still need to wait until SXSW to write about the cancellation/uncancellation/day of/moved panel part of it all? ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
list the sources so far (note this is not the same list as in the archive though it includes that list):
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
{ping|Lightlowemon|Gamaliel} is there a reason to remove the pp-move-indef ? ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I will never understand Gamergate, but can I ask why in the "History" section, the relationship between Quinn and Nathan Grayson is called "allegation"? Sure, the newspaper sources at the time use "allegation", but as subsequently made clear by the Kotaku source, the "allegation" is simply a fact and is disputed by no one. The important point to make clear is that the relationship started after the gaming review appeared, so there was no conflict of interest. We are now sufficiently distant from the events that we can write about facts, and not just allegations. I was told one of the tips for good writing is to clothe the naked "this". The sentence starting with "This was quickly proven to be false"
is needlessly unclear and awkward.
Kingsindian
♝
♚ 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
In August 2014, Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, published the "Zoe Post", a 9,425-word blog post that quoted from personal chat logs, emails, and text messages to describe their relationship. The post, described as "rambling" in the NYT<nyt ref>, complained, among other things, that Quinn entered a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the Gawker Media video game website Kotaku. The post was linked on 4chan, where some claimed that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest. This claim was false, as Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games; his piece concerning her was published before their relationship began.
Changes:
Issues I am not happy about, but probably are not resolvable:
I have implemented my suggestion above. Feel free to revert/discuss. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately PeterTheFourth in their rewrite here has missed the point of my edit. As I tried to explain in detail above, we are now one and a half years from the incidents. It now makes no sense to write a "he said/she said" version of events. The fact that the editor of Kotaku wrote the article is irrelevant, so we don't have to write "according to so and so". We can just state it as a fact, because the fact is important, and nobody doubts it. One can copyedit without changing the meaning of the text. One also does not need to write "erroneously" twice. It is sufficient to describe the claim in one sentence and debunk it in the next. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
From Mediaite, NY Times, CNN Fall For Fake Eyewitness Blaming San Bernardino on GamerGate. Gotta love the Mainstream Media. GamerPro64 17:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Please only discuss how to improve the article. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 05:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 17:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a40504/gender-video-games-research/ ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I know I've brought this up, and I'm still looking for RS to support something to add, but here's GG again being used as an example of bad behavior: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-is-the-gamergate-of-republican-politics/ Also, I think the Trump tweet is interesting. ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 17:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Please remember the main page is under WP:1RR. ForbiddenRocky ( talk) 11:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)