Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Issues with dealing with coverage of GG from mainstream

Please note that I am not considering this source for including (it is a labeled contribution/op-ed from GamePolitics), but it does bring up points that as editors here we have to be careful of that I have pointed out before many times; this just confirms those points.

[1] describes how reporting on GG brings ire from both sides of the situation (in this case, anti-GG got on Good's case for writing neutrally about GG instead of condemning it) The key point is that in talking to Polygon's Owen Good, Erik Kain, Jesse Singal , and a few others, that they all notes that modern journalism stories mix fact and opinion, compared to old-school journalism where fact was segregated from opinion (they disagree which is the better approach, but all acknowledge this difference). To that end, this points for us as a tertiary source that just because something is said by a reliable source does not make it fact or truth because of the new school of journalism which mixes opinion with fact. That means we should be less hesistent to be using NPOV and not taking RSes sources as facts at their face, but instead where there is any type of contention to make sure it is labeled and attributed as such. This does not mean that all these RSes are unreliable or unusable, but only that if they are making superlative or labeling statements that are contested by others (such as "GG being a harassment campaign", we should be attributing these as opinions. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing a basis for a radical shift away from WP:WEIGHT in this op-ed. Artw (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing against WEIGHT; it is still the predominant opinion of mainstream that GG is about harassment and that we have to report appropriately. But the key is to recognize it as opinion and not fact, which amounts to careful wording choices in some parts of this article, not massive editing changes. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact/opinion distinction here is something you have invented for yourself and for anything beyond 1+1=2 is effectively meaningless. Wikipedia attempts to construct the best overview of any subject from the opinions of reliable sources, for this article and for others, and has always done so. The WEIGHT guidelines and others others are all based around this and give us a working model of how to do so and this article confirms to that model. I see no reason to make a special case for GamerGate and ignore all that.

Look, you've spend a year now trying to get us to ignore WP:UNDUE so you can paint a rosier picture of GamerGate, so I know you must be familiar with all of this, it's getting rather tiresome having to repeatedly tell you how Wikipedia works. Artw (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing against UNDUE. I have said repeatedly that we need to still respect the fact that the predominant coverage of GG is decidedly negative and critical of it, and thus the article will be heavily skewed towards that opinion.

The key point however, is that WP's goal is to provide neutral coverage, and that means recognizing for a controversy and a social situation where there is not necessarily any right answer that we are supposed to be documenting the different points of view without saying which side is correct. And that means that we should not be immediately assuming that just because it is the most common view of mainstream media that their view is 100% correct. This is what NPOV demands. (See WP:NPOV/FAQ - "Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so.") I am not asking for any "special case" as this is ingrained in NPOV to make sure we are documenting the views instead of presuming either side is correct. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to understand exactly what it is you're specifically arguing for here. In your ideal world what would the article look like? What are the opinions that are stated as fact in the article, and how should they be modified? Brustopher (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's very difficult to go into specifics but there are two things broadly that should be done. First, the article must be written on the factual nature that no one knows what GG really is, instead of coming out the door as the article presently does that it is a harassment campaign. While a claim made by many sources, it is also contested by those in the movement as well as the various off-center sources, as well as in sources like the NYTimes and WaPost. It appears as a harassment campaign, but we cannot write the article on that presumption. There has been harassment associated with GG (the history section isn't going anywhere), but we should be treating it factually that we have no idea who is actually engaging in the harassment, though plenty of finger-pointing from the media that it is the movement doing it. This, I should note, does not require major reorganization or rewriting but the appropriate wordsmithing throughout the article.

Second, once its understood that we have a movement that we cannot directly associate with the harssmet, is to make sure that we don't treat their broader claims and activities with resentfulness. (There's only one claim that we have to come out and say has been proven false, and that's the one about Quinn and Grayson that launched the whole thing). The fact we have sections called "Debate about ethics concerns" and "Efforts to impact public perception" is making it look like WP is treating their claims with scorn, which we should not be. As the NPOV/FAQ says, as long as we attribute those claims to the group, this is not WP endorsing those claims. Once we have introduced what the movement is and their claims and what other things they have done, then we can go into the criticism about those claims and the legitimacy of the movement as a whole, which are also valid to include. And it is very likely that this criticism will take more space than the statement of the movements claims, per UNDUE. Doing that is properly documenting of the controversy instead of trying to push one side of it. This would require a reorganization and wordsmithing of information that is already there, but not otherwise changing the existing sources.

This is not the only two changes that would need to be made but they are the broadest two that should be addressed first. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to your first point: the article doesn't start by claiming Gamergate (the group) is a harassment campaign, merely that the controversy surrounding it is "most notable for a harassment campaign." As most of the coverage surrounding Gamergate has focused harassment this is true. Also I don't know of any sources that off-center or not that deny completely GG's association with harassment. There are also sources that specifically note harassing or negative comments on twitter and gamergate forums on reddit and 8chan. It's fair enough to say GG can be associated with harassment in some way or another.

Your second point I find more understandable. We have a lot of sourced that mention certain beliefs and views popular amongst Gamergate supporters, and these views should be given greater inclusion so as to better understand what GG supporters think of themselves as. As for sections titles, what would you suggest as alternatives? Brustopher (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t the first point, I personally find that the use of a Wikipedia term of art (e.g. notable) in WP:MAINSPACE tends to set off alarm bells, primarily around POV. It may be better for this to be phrased in natural English. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the first point, we have this sentence from the lead "The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate." Now, I'm not saying this is factually wrong, but it is a very nuanced statement that makes it appear that #gamergate is just about harassment. It sets the tone for the entire rest of the article to say "GG is bad, okay?" And we shouldn't be doing that. There's a better to phrase is to say that on the onset of Gjoni's post, there is documented evidence of coordination of harassment; but coordination of harassment since that point is not shown, it's only perceived by trends that harassment continues. This is the type of language that seems fine if one starts with the thesis "GG is a harassment campaign" but fails to hold up when considering how we should present the sources under NPOV. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t the question of section titles. Propose:

Debate over ethics allegations -> Ethics allegations or Ethics concerns - Allegations or concerns is already a hedge word, doubly hedging with "debate over" or "questions of" is POV-sided;

Efforts to impact public perceptions -> remove subsection header; refactor/reorganise Gamergate activities section - The content of this section of the article needs work. That the activities included in this section occurred appears verified by the sources referenced; that they were an attempt to impact public perceptions is an opinion.

W.r.t Brustopher's comment these views should be given greater inclusion so as to better understand what GG supporters think of themselves, I suggest that a clear, concise, non-judgemental, potentially attributed, documenting of the Gamergate movements views of itself would be a distinct, and easily achievable improvement to this article. We can, and should, document what the movement thinks of itself, including what its claims are, without supporting it or those claims. What we have now is either straw men, covered in hedges, or has a screaming case of the WP:HOWEVERs. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact/opinion distinction is a clearly and unambiguously a core content principle; see WP:5P and WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV. With respect, the assertion that Wikipedia attempts to construct the best overview from the opinions of reliable sources and other such suggestions that Wikipedia should present opinion as fact are patent nonsense, the repetition of which is approaching WP:CIR. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

okay, let's put it like this: the opinion of any Wikipedia editor on what is fact and what is opinion is itself an opinion, and one that can be subject to bias, which is why we lean on the balance of sources to determine what to treat as fact, not individual editors. Artw (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, actually. On Wikipedia, that's what consensus is; it's not one editor's opinion, it is what the consensus of editors are, which includes what past policies and guidelines as well as opinions of individual editors. That's why we are supposed to have discussions and !voting and the like. This is our role as a tertiary sources - we have to make such editorial decisions on what are reliable sources, which materials from RSes are appropriate to include, and so on to still write a neutral article that is an appropriate summary of the larger topic. Again, this is outlined in NPOV/FAQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)

The consensus is the sources don't support you rewriting the article to support a factually dodgy POV. Artw (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I would suggest that there is a wide consensus, per WP policy & guidelines on WP:NPOV, to support rewriting the article to document the various points of view; regardless of how dodgy they might seem to editors. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Except there is no consensus of the sources (unlike, say, the established shape of the earth where there is irrefutable evidence towards that). Yes, you have several predominant claims being made (such as GG being a harassment campaign) but these are also contested by other sources as well as the group that the charges are leveled at. As such, they are contentious statements, and per NPOV we don't treat the claims as facts; we don't eliminate those claims but simply attribute them as claims to the major press and don't take a side in the matter. We are required to write this way as a neutral work. It doesn't matter if the counterside is a dodgy POV, because we aren't judging the situation. This is what separates us from just simply mirroring what is said in the media, we actually have to present it in a neutral way, and the way GG has been handled by the press (as indicated by the above link) means that our job is not as straight forward as simply repeating the sources. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be useful, as you say you're actually interested in the topic and not merely trying to score rhetorical points, to take a look at some of the extensive literature on journalism. You're writing as if New Journalism is entirely new to you -- Tom Wolfe’s anthology came out 42 years ago! -- and as if the postmodern turn never happened, and that the turn away from postmodern epistemology also never happened. This gives your argument the appearance of tendentious special pleading -- that we waive NPOV for this article alone because the sources are all bias! bias! bias! -- when in fact you may merely be discovering for the first time that Pulitzer, too, is capable of being problematized. Perhaps I have done you an injustice.

Wikipedia's policy is indeed naively reliant on the utility of the accepted consensus of reliable sources, and yes, this is often problematic. This is an encyclopedia, and relies on notions of truth or at least utility that have been doubtful since Diderot and Descarte and untenable for a century. If you'd like to teach postmodernism to your fellow editors, the village pump is thataway ⇒ (and good luck with that).

In the meantime, Wikipedia is not going to be "hesitent," as you suggest it should be, to rely upon the consensus view of received sources. Press commentators since Carlyle and Marx have joined you in railing against the bourgeois complacency of this reliance. But if Wikipedia were to imagine that the reliable sources are all biased against Gamergate, the Marxists will point out that the reliable sources are demonstrably biased against the proletariat, fundamentalist will observe that the reliable sources are patently biased against Revealed Truth, and off to the races we will go. There’s a huge epistemological literature on the question; again, if you'd like to educate yourself that’s never a bad thing, and if you’d like to educate your fellow editors, the village pump is thataway ⇒ (and good luck with that, too).

Wikipedia is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion. That this problematic is certain, but there is no help for it. Of making many books there is no end, a preacher once said. There is no certainty; all is vanity. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing against this statement "Wikipedia is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion." (emphasis mine). UNDUE/WEIGHT has to apply. I am not saying because of this new journalism where opinion and facts get mixed without clear bounds that we have to give more excessive weight to other sources. As I stated above, harassment associated with GG is the predominant viewpoint in mainstream, it is impossible to ignore as their stance of what GG is. But this is where I turn back to what you said, that we're looking to summarize the weight of the relevant opinions, and that's the point of the above article - that because of new journalism there are a lot things that are being reported in the words of these journalists in the tone of being fact but that are at their root opinions. And because of that, and that they are contested facts, per NPOV, we take care in ascribing such contentious claims as fact, so that we stay objective and neutral in the face of new journalism. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You mistake me -- or maybe you just seize on my use of "opinion" to score another high school debating point. Who can tell? I can’t. But “received opinion” is, in Wikipedia terms, a synonym for "fact": we acknowledge as scientists that all truth is provisional but these facts are what (almost) everyone agrees to be (almost) true. Reflect for a moment from whom (or Whom) we receive these received opinions. Other contested facts include the second law of thermodynamics, the reality of evolution, the historicity of the Holocaust, the meaning of My Little Pony . . . MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. Opinion is opinion on WP, we don't dance around terms like that, and we take very careful steps to avoid having opinion reported as fact per NPOV least we break neutrality and objectivity. The methods of new journalism make it that we as a neutral source are not required to take what an RS says as fact at its face if it is clear that the statement is considered contentious by others. No one has a right answer for many of the open questions on GG, which is the usually case for any social controversy (like Occupy Wall Street, for example). It is opinions battling opinions. This is how we're supposed to report any controversy as long as it remains a controversy (which GG is, there's no evidence of it having ended), and particularly when the media itself is part of it, we need to be even more careful in how we tread. It doesn't make the mainstream sources any less important than they are, just that we cannot a priori assume they are reporting all facts just because the article lacks the "op-ed" byline. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I will disagree with the statement Wikipedia is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion, in the sense that it appears to be intended above. We document opinions as opinions, we don't simply repeat them because they are popular; there is no follow the sources policy or guideline.

I also suggest that it is a palpable false equivalence to suggest that matters about which there is scientific consensus (second law of thermodynamics, theory of evolution) or significant historical record & academic consensus (historicity of the Holocaust), are the equivalent to matters where we have only the utterings of a series of internet pundits each pushing their own agenda.

Opinions are like Nelsons, everybody's got ones. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK: you're not really interested in journalism or epistemology, I guess. If you believe that the New Journalism means that reliable sources need not be treated as reliable sources, you believe that Wikipedia policy is, and always has, contradicted itself and is meaningless. That seems a good summary of this argument you persistently make, and which has in all the many thousands of repetitions acquired no support anywhere. And a pony. 18:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of sources does not mean they are 100% accuracy or correct. It means they have fact checking to the best of their ability, but because of new journalism, in the presentation of the material can still be opinionated and skew facts or present opinions without support.

This goes back to a discussion about reviewing the sources from a few months ago. If you carefully read the most reliable sources , like the New York Times or Wa Post, they do not directly state some of the claims that others have made without carefully wording it as an opinion or an observation but not as fact. Less reliable sources (particularly when we get into the gaming media) are less prone to this meticulous checking, and hence they made claims as fact that we have to be careful about. Are they bad sources because of this? No, just that we have to recognize these should be stated as opinions and not as facts as NPOV directly outlines. This is particularly true that this is a social issue, there is no right answer here. There's predominant opinions, but that's it. Document the controversy, not become part of it by blindly accepting one side where there is clear contention from the other side(s) of the situation.

Also, you are now personally attacking me again, please stop immediately. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, I read through, and tried to make sense of the above, but, in faith, could not. Researching New Journalism and Advocacy journalism, and the long storied discussion of these in journalism & academic circles, I can't reach any conclusion other than that you're suggesting that actually, it's about ethics in journalism; but I'm not sure if that's an accurate reflection.

I'm certainly not seeing anything that indicates that we should present opinions as facts, in contravention of WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV, which seems to be the central point of Masem's concerns. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Masemt, I'm not attacking you. I've been trying to decipher your apparent discovery of modernist and postmodern thought, but that seems to have been a misunderstanding based n your chance use of terminology that, on other circles, has meaning. Here, apparently, it doesn't. My mistake; I'll try not to make that one again. RYK: if you're seriously interested in these questions, start with Eagleton, After Theory. Wolfe himself is always worthwhile as well. Have fun. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, Firstly, I thank you for the Eagleton recommendation; I have looked over some reviews of the work, and it looks most interesting and enlightening. I look forward to reading it.

Thinking through the questions on New Journalism, and the problems inherent with basing our articles on mixtures of fact and opinion, I am not sure that a deeper dive into the questions of modernism, post-modernism & post-post-modernism here necessarily adds to the article. I do consider WP's policies and guidelines to essentially cover this already - they require that we treat the portions that are fact as fact, and the portions that are opinion as opinion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Something to point out in light of what Masem is trying to get at, consider this from today, which bases the notion that this particular shooter was 'a Gamergate supporter' when anyone with half a lick of sense would check out the steam account mentioned and quickly realize this was entirely made up. Now consider the fact that this entire piece was based of one individual's statement, and that even if he hadn't been blatantly trolling them it would've still been taken in by these journalists. That's where citing these sources as fact and not opinions starts becoming a problem. There are several lines that take the word of one individual and state it as a fact, when in reality it's their opinion and their recollection of the events related to Gamergate. While it's not our place to try and figure out if Quinn, Gjoni, Wu, Totilo, Bain, etc are telling the truth, we should stick to "according to so-and-so", than to present their statements as without a doubt facts. I don't really care where your opinion lies on this matter, that's just good common sense editing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Williams played online video games with the group known as Gamergate… I don't even know what to say. GamerPro64 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many, many sources have reported on Quinn, Wu, and other gamergate victims. Each has found their claims entirely credible; I believe in fact that not a single major report in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Boston Magazine, have cast any doubt whatsoever on their claims. Yet, for some reason, this Gamergate talking point gets trotted out regularly on Wikipedia. Why would that be? Hmm.... I can't seem to put a finger on it. Anyone? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil. Being sarcastic and rude is not going to get us anywhere here. The point still stands that many things reported in this article are from personal accounts and we need to take that into consideration. Nobody's assuming any individual here is presenting a falsehood, but we shouldn't take it as absolute fact either. If there's a media consensus towards what this event is, we should be presenting that, and frankly I think that alone would smooth other a great many criticisms against this article because in its current form it is dictating what something is based off those accounts rather than summarizing the media's reaction towards the matter. And with this many individuals involved from all over, statements should be attributed to the person making them, not some assumption that because a website rallied behind the point it's an absolute.

Hell I've written enough character articles on wikipedia to know that over time consensus can change, or even never have existed at all and only been assumed. If you see that as a slight against you or against the individuals in this article as you indicated with your retort, I don't know what to tell you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We do need to be aware that the press does elevate the claims of victims when the victims are sympathetic towards the readership and/or those attacking the victim are not. (GG hits both sides here). The recent mess with Rolling Stone is evidence that sometimes bad reporting happens when such aspects come into play. This is part of the overall caution that we have to be aware of in new journalism. That said, in this situation, we have all three stating they have received harassment themselves (as opposed to someone else speaking for them). Per BLP policy we must assume this is true (they have received harassment) until clear evidence is made by the reliable sources against this. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So what's the point here? First you say we should keep the Rolling Stone case in mind, then you say this is nothing like the Rolling Stone case? The issue here is that we do not to my knowledge have single sources (not even one)that completely denies Gamergate's role in harassment. From my reading of the sources, the writers who've written the most sympathetic RS pieces towards Gamergate (Bokhari, Young and Auerbach), have all acknowledged harassment associated with Gamergate. From Bokhari: "There has been an awful lot of hate on both sides of this divide." [2] From Young: "While the gamers' revolt has very legitimate issues, is (sic.) also true that it has been linked to some very ugly misogynist harassment of feminists."[3] From Auerbach: "It is imperative to stop Gamergate because it’s currently a troll’s paradise, providing cover for a whole host of bad actors, whether they’re pro-Gamergate, anti-Gamergate, or simply wantonly malicious."[4] Even the voices most sympathetic towards Gamergate amongst RS writers note the harassment done under its name. Unless we plan to go full solipsism, there is no reason not to state that supporters of Gamergate have harassed people as a fact. Brustopher (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it becomes a weird thing there with the stated extent: more than a few voices in this article present it as all consuming, while others acknowledge it's presence but a difficulty to attribute it exactly to members of the tag. I think that's where attribution of statements could help a great deal here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific point that I was commenting on is that a few of the more recent sources I located over the last week from right-wing papers beg the question if the claims of harassment by Quinn et al were faked, which I know is also a common theme at GG forums. Because Quinn et al all have self-reported that they have been harassed, but do not specifically name names outside of saying it is related to GG, then per BLP we really cannot even consider this stance in putting in doubts about the harassment as Mark outlined, unless we get a boatload of reliable sources that affirm otherwise. The larger point (mostly separate from this) those is to remember that in this new journalism, the goal of journalists is to draw eyeballs to their stories by writing for the benefit of their readership, and not necessary write neutrality. The most reliable sources like NYTimes, BBC, and WaPost, still maintain some of the old-school journalistic acts by keeping close to neutral, but when you start going off those marks, it is very easy to find sloppy reporting that favors victims like the Rolling Stone thing. As a tertiary source, we have to be fully aware of that when pulling information from these types of sources that they may be slanted. The GG situation provides a case where that slant is potentially large, due to the nature of the victims (female professionals), the fact this is over video games, and that the harassers appear to be 4chan-related young males with misogynist attitudes; it is not helped by the fact that journalistic integrity issues are part of the complaints here. It is very easy for new journalism to slip into non-neutral coverage of this type of story. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have stating that the current sources are opinions or non-neutral or sloppy or slanted? Woodroar (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The one linked at the start of this, for example. But obviously you're not going to find journalists reporting on their own issues. We have to use common sense here as a tertiary source, and all this relates to is understanding when to label statements made by the press as claims rather than facts, not for insert things they or other RSes haven't reported on. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

An opinion piece on a questionable site and your own original research that reporting on GamerGate just has to be biased and so we should treat it all as opinion? I'll ask it again: what reliable sources do you have stating that the current sources are opinions or non-neutral or sloppy or slanted? Woodroar (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As a tertiary source, we have every right to consider what sources are reliable (per WP:V and WP:NOR) and when they are speaking opinion or fact (per WP:NPV). We can't change what they say but we can write what they say as claims if the statements are considered contentious, which is the case with most of the situation with GG as stated by journalists involved with GG reporting in that article and from the Society of Professional Journalism. We don't require RSes to evaluate RSes as that is all BG material. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in NPOV that says we get to downgrade facts to opinions whenever we like. In fact, it says specifically that we need to report opinions as opinions and facts as facts. The bulk of our sources consist of factual journalism, and treating them as op-ed pieces is a rather serious misrepresentation. Woodroar (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar, WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV requires that we treat contentious assertions as opinions and attribute them; and, consequently, we must do so. W.r.t the categorisation of the sources currently used, with respect, the assertion that they consist (solely) of factual journalism is not supported by an examination of those sources - the vast majority clearly consist of opinion or of a mixture of fact and opinion. This is true even for those sources which are from publishers which we would consider reliable for factual information, and even for those sources which are not clearly identified as opinion pieces. This is quite a normal occurrence; normal enough to have been mentioned in our policies & guidelines on NPOV & Verifiability. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are all these opinions? I just checked the first column of sources in the article and there were zero opinion articles. Should I check the rest? Because it's not up to us to say "yeah, that's a fact; no, that's an opinion". If a reliable source publishes a piece as factual journalism, whether it's a current event or an overview, we have to trust them. (To do otherwise is original research.) And this isn't a "conflicting assertions" situation, it's not 50/50 or even 75/25. Virtually all reliable sources agree on the facts. Calling them anything other than facts is misrepresenting the sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV is very exacting to this. If a RS makes a contentious claim, even if they word it as an apparent fact, we are supposed to report it as a claim. That does not "misrepresent" the source in any way, since we are saying "Source X claims this happens". This is documented more at WP:NPOV/FAQ particularly under "Writing for the opposition". Wikipedia does less harm by treating contentious statements as claims rather than facts. And no, just because the predominant opinion may be near universal among RSes, for a controversy like GG is, we are also supposed to document the more significant minority viewpoints too, which in this case is what GG have stated. It doesn't matter if they are 5% to 95%, we are still required to document the controversy (the only thing that ratio will impact is the amount of content we give towards the proGG per UNDUE) We as a group have to put aside any contempt we might have towards GG to write neutrally about it, understand how the sources have approached the subject, and how we document the situation without judgement. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that (it appears) you're suggesting we approach this article from the position that all claims are inherently contentious. The narrative or timeline or what-have-you of GamerGate is consistent among reliable sources, outside of a very few. I think we do a fine job of including those conflicting sources–as we do with the few sourced perspectives of GamerGate supporters–but the areas where sources contradict are minimal. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall any reliable sources claiming that harassment hasn't happened, or misogyny doesn't exist, or gamer identity isn't changing. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it really sounds like you're saying that "because of New Journalism" all sources are somehow tainted. As far as policy goes, WP:IRS doesn't warn us not to use sources after 1960. (And outside policy, this is neither the time nor place for a deconstruction of New Journalism, but the backlash against it was, in short, "well duh, objectivity in journalism is impossible and it's always been that way, this isn't new". For this exact reason, Society of Professional Journalists doesn't even include "objective" or "objectivity" in their ethics code anymore.) I agree that we shouldn't say that "GamerGate is the literal devil", but treating all sources as opinions does actually dilute what those sources state as facts. But here's where I AGF and allow that, perhaps, you didn't mean that we should do this throughout the article, but only where sources are in conflict with each other. Maybe you could provide some examples of what you're suggesting? Woodroar (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar, For questions of WP:NPOV & "objectivity", there is no suggestion made that sources are tainted or otherwise unusable, only that contentious assertions should be attributed; please see WP:NPOV/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity for a good explanation of these aspects.

I'm also seeing a couple of lines of thought that might be underpinning the perceived issues w.r.t this aspect of WP:NPOV...

1. Granularity of "fact" vs "opinion" is at the publisher or source level - This is essentially the "New Journalism" discussion above & below, so I will not repeat it overly; suffice to say that sources may contain a mix of fact and opinion, the granularity of which is at the level of the assertion.
2. Conflation of "reliable sources for facts" with "validity of opinion" - This is (imho) a considerable problem, and is evidenced by discussions of sources being reliable or not reliable for opinions of their authors. That we consider the NYT or WaPo a reliable source for facts does not mean that we consider the opinions of their writers to be also fact. That we do not consider other publications to not be reliable for facts does not mean that we consider the opinions of their writers to be invalid or false.

W.r.t the assertion that the narrative ... of GamerGate is consistent among reliable sources, this is simply not supported by an analysis of those sources; see previous Talk page discussion of such an analysis by Rhoark. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, failure of or course granularity in separation of concerns is a perennial problem with peoples' applications of WP policy. On this page and everywhere. Rhoark (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that the common English idiom, "beg the question," means what Masem thinks it means. But of course I might be mistaken. Who can tell? And so who can possibly respond? (I will henceforth refer to this editor as M______ as he persists in using my first name as if we were great pals.)

I also notice that "right wing papers" -- we're talking Breitbart and John Birch right wing, I expect, or maybe the Stormfront right wing, because let’s face it if we were talking merely right-wing like the Le Figaro or the Chicago Tribune we’d be pretending they were centrist -- are now being propped up as a coequal weight with Reliable Sources. And once again we're talking about how the nasty liberal press is all bias, naming specific publications but without the least indication of what ethical lapses M_____ dreams they committed. And we have another accusation that named individuals committed the crime of filing a false police report, based apparently on M___’s original research into unnamed right-wing tabloids.

Whether it’s “easy” or not for the new journalism to slip into non-neutral coverage of “this type of story” is a fascinating question. Since the new journalism ended a quarter of a century ago, we shall never know the answer. I myself think that Hunter S. Thompson -- who is dead -- would prefer to slip into something more comfortable than this type of story. But perhaps M_____ is alluding to the contingent construction of meaning, or maybe he thinks "new journalism" is contemporary. It’s impossible to tell from the text, and he’s not answering the question.

Presently, this note and my notes upstream will again be featured in satirical posts on Gamergate boards, written by a Gamergater whose screen name commemorated the sweet, sweet music made by Nazi dive bombers as they strafed civilian socialists at Guernica. That, too, is intended to send a message; I wonder if M_______ and the admins have noticed that, and if they have, which admins endorse it and which admins simply wash their hands of it.

I’m waiting for the admins -- or someone -- to (a) redact the BLP violations above, (b) do something about this continual attack on Wikipedia editors, on-wiki and off, and (c) stop this interminable crusade to throw wikipedia out the window because bias. But, apparently, it's a lot easier to look the other way, isn’t it, and to deliver pious platitudes about assuming good faith despite a track record extending for an entire year and far more than a million words of calculated misogynist bile. As the fellow says, Have a great day! MarkBernstein (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is a personal attack. Do not comment on the contributor, comment on the content, period. You're also not assuming any good faith towards that other editor just based on their username.

We have clear sources that put forth the fact that journalists admit that the GG situation is being reported with a mix of fact and opinion, if this was not already obvious from how the story is covered, as long as you are looking for documenting the controversy and not trying to have WP take a side. Once again, it is not a violation of BLPTALK to talk about what other sources have said in context of improving the article. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It assuredly is a violation of WP:BLPTALK (and common decency, at long last) to insinuate that a named, living individual has committed crimes (and sexual indiscretions) on the basis of what an editors thinks he saw in some unnamed "right wing" papers or other sources that he openly admits are unreliable, unverifiable, and unusable and which are explicitly contradicted by a host of superb sources. And again, there is no personal attack: the attack is on the the incoherence and incomprehensibility of what has been written here. No one who has studied journalism, even superficially, would now claim that any subject, from the Gettysburg Campaign to the sexual overtones of My Little Pony, has been or can be covered without a mixture of fact and opinion; Gamergate in this respect differs not a whit from everything else in the encyclopedia. This is an observation I made many posts above in very plain English and to which you, characteristically, do not respond, choosing instead (to the extent any reader can discern just what these comments intend to express) simply to repeat the error in support of revisions that cannot be accepted. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

BLPTALK says it is acceptable to include claims made by other RS sources (which regardless of the fact they are right-wing papers are still RSes) to consider for inclusion or discuss as necessary. I certainly did not make the claim on my own, nor do I believe that claim, and side with you in keeping that claim out of the article. But it's not a BLPTALK violation to discuss those RS claims. And on your point of new journalism not only is there the above article, there is from 2009, from 2011, in 2010, 2013, and that's just the first page of google hits. New journalism or opinion journalism clearly exists and is in use today, and can be clearly seen in the coverage of GG. And it is a personal attack to try to discredit an editor by point out things like "sexual overtones of MLP" (which I know I had to include in the fandom article because it was covered by RSes). You're not supposed to talk or imply anything about editors, period, on talk pages of mainspace articles. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Understanding historical concepts and literary schools is not simply a matter of looking up the first page of Google hits. The New Journalism was influential. So was the New Criticism, which predates it for a half century. Opinion journalism, on the other hand, predates the New Journalism by several centuries; it's not the droid you're looking for, even if some other people abuse the term. An expert Wikipedian might be leery of relying on Wikipedia for such abstruse literary history, but here it is from Wikipedia’s lede: "The phenomenon of New Journalism is generally considered to have ended by the early 1980s". That, friends, is thirty years ago: Like A Virgin and One More Night were top of the charts, Amadeus was best picture, the Apple Macintosh had been on sale for several months, and Mike Trout would be born only six years later.

If M_____ has written anything about sex and My Little Pony, that’s news to me; like The Gettysburg Campaign, it was a shot at venture. (I can't believe I'm writing about writing about sex and My Little Pony; the Baudrillard Singularity Of The Meta must be imminent.) If M_____ has reliable right-wing sources for his insinuations about Zoe Quinn’s sex life and purported crimes, he might have identified them at once, and surely would have identified them after my previous speculation that they were either from the Breitbart fringe or the Storefront fringe. And it's convenient to constantly cry about personal attacks when you've got your very own platform in the wings constantly attacking your fellow editors, run by that charming fellow whose name commemorates the sweet, sweet music of Nazi dive bombers as they gunned down fleeing socialists, and about which M___ has, apparently, been too busy writing about his little pony to denounce. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Stick a fork in this thread; it's done. We are not going to relax Wikipedia's hard-and-fast policy on WP:NPOV simply because GG is not being portrayed here fairly, as determined by Masem. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, Many thanks for your thoughts. With respect, I suggest that the shoe would appear to be, at least in part, on the other foot; or perhaps there are two shoes. A number of editors have asserted, above and elsewhere, that we should relax WP's hard-and-fast policy on WP:NPOV by documenting opinions and/or contentious statements as facts. Such assertions clearly do not align with WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC) updated - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Have they really asserted that? Because that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike any of the statements I've read above. Woodroar (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar Yes. That's essentially been the line pushed on multiple occasions.

Roughly it works as follows:

1. Equate reliability for facts with reliability for attributed opinions. (NB: This is not supported by policy, or consensus practice at WP:RSN); 2. Assert that all "reliable sources" present the same opinion. (NB: This has been demonstrated to be false per analysis by Rhoark et al); 3. Assert that we should "follow the sources", "report the consensus of reliable sources", or similiar. (NB: This is not supported by policy - there is no "Follow the sources" policy);1, 2 4. Assert that because those sources present the same opinion, and that those publishers are considered reliable for fact, that those opinions are fact. (NB: This is not supported by policy, and directly contradicts WP:NPOV. This is also logically invalid, the conclusion does not follow from the premise);1 5. For sources which present alternate opinions, assert that those sources are WP:FRINGE because they do not agree with the "facts". (See above; including discussion of Spiked above).1, 2, 3, 4

I think we need to agree that the standards for reliably verifying opinion are manifestly different from those for reliably verifying fact; I think we need to agree that we document opinions as opinions, and only clear uncontroversial fact as fact; I think we need to agree that we should be documenting the range of opinions, attributed, rather than a purported consensus of them - this is the Flat Earth article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have done you the courtesy of again reading the above statements from Artw, Brustopher, MarkBernstein, and myself, and they do not appear to say what you claim they say. (Perhaps me fail english, but that is literally unpossible.) I noticed that you made similar claims at AE, even after editors pointed out your misunderstanding. At this time, I must politely request that you read the thread again and ask clarifying questions if necessary. I briefly quested after Rhoark's Mystical Codex of Evidence +5 but my ctrl-F has failed—perhaps the section is hatted?—so kindly stop pinging me unless you have reliable sources or something new to bring here. Woodroar (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for your courtesy. I fear there may have been a misunderstanding. I do not suggest that each of the points outlined above is included explicitly in the section above, far less transparently so. I do suggest that the discussion above is the direct result of such; by "multiple occasions", above, I am suggesting that it is necessary to look outside this thread. I have included a link to the analysis of sources, and some other diffs from this and other recent discussions, and will attempt to find links to examples of the other points. I do note that the thread containing the analysis did not formally close, and consider that discussion here might be improved if discussions were closed. Per your request, I am not pinging you. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy it.

First, Rhoark's list is a non-starter:

If Gamergate controversy‎ were based on the quoted selections from those 31 sources and only those quoted selections, then yes, the article would likely be drastically different. But that would ignore (a) that several of those sources are unreliable and/or opinion pieces, (b) other quotes from those articles provide necessary context, (c) the 200+ other sources already in the article, and (d) the many reliable sources that aren't currently in the article (or were removed) because of redundancy. When we consider WP:WEIGHT (and similar policies regarding balance of sources), we must look at the entirety of reliable sources, not selected quotations from selected sources.

Furthermore, if there had been consensus to change the article based on Rhoark's list, then we would have done so. All of the above issues were pointed out in that discussion, which is why the suggested changes were not made.

Second, I still feel like the statements of Artw, Brustopher, and MarkBernstein in the links above were misunderstood. I am reluctant to put words in their mouths, but I'll attempt a general summary with a small amount of analogy (and I won't be offended if they come along to correct me). I hope you'll agree when I say that there are an almost endless number of facts, but of course those facts must necessarily be narrowed down to work with them. An investigative journalist can't report literally every single witness report or their column would run to hundreds of pages of primary documents. This is true of anyone summarizing vast amounts of documents or data, historians and analysts and so on. This process is necessarily subjective: how to include/exclude and/or rank/weigh documents, consider correlation and confounding factors, etc. We're all fallible, but we have processes to account for that, like peer-review and editors/fact-checkers. Ultimately, we trust the people and organizations that rigorously adhere to these processes because they're right more than they're wrong. They have, to use our words, "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So when MarkBernstein (for example) talks about "received opinion", he isn't talking about some "Letters to the Editor"-quality op-eds. He's saying that sources like the New York Times have considered all of the facts at hand and reported what they believe to be an accurate summary of events. This is subjective by nature and necessity, but the same is true of literally every summary in every field. Their "received opinion" is the same as a fact, and distinct from an op-ed.

To make a long story short (too late), these editors aren't suggesting that we report opinion as fact. On the contrary, they are suggesting that we shouldn't look at, say, some piece of factual journalism from the New York Times and cherry-pick the facts we dislike, considering them mere opinions because it suits our purposes. I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought long about the above. I'm sure I must be missing something here, because, with respect, I'm not sure how to respond to the thought that editors are not saying "opinions are facts", because, essentially, "opinions are facts".
Are editors supporting an assertion that Wikipedia should only present received opinion able to provide policy based support for this assertion?
It would seem to fly in the face of WP:NPOV - All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
We have ample sources which verify that there are a range of views on this controversy; the name, controversy itself implies as much. We have a non-negotiable policy which states that we should document those viewpoints. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we're talking about separate things here.

The editors are saying that our article should be based on facts as found in reliable sources, with minimal use of opinion, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. They see this notion of "sources are a mixture of fact and opinion" as a ploy to selectively remove facts that one doesn't like, which undermines our sourcing policies. The archived Talk pages are filled with (to paraphrase) "the source says X but it doesn't say how or why so it's opinion" and "the source didn't go into Y so it's opinion". But we don't get decide that a source's analysis is opinion simply because we don't like it, because our own OR says that it's not true. And then there are actual opinion pieces, like the one linked at the top of this section, that should be used sparingly (if at all) because they typically don't go through the normal editorial fact-checking process. They certainly shouldn't guide the article because they are, after all, opinion pieces.

And then there's our summary of the "sides" as you mentioned. We call this article a "controversy" because that's how reliable sources consider it. Reliable sources also talk about a "climate change debate", because there is a debate of sorts in that there are "sides", but it's not really a debate. Now I can't speak for everyone here, but I agree that there are a range of views and that we should document them, but we have to draw from reliable sources and not opinion pieces. And we can't pretend that there is anything resembling equality in how reliable sources report on GamerGate. Woodroar (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I concur that we're talking about different things, but do agree that there might be some semantic, rather than real, differences.
I concur that the article should assert facts, including facts about opinions, rather than asserting opinions in Wikipedia's voice. The notion of "sources are a mixture of fact and opinion" is not a ploy to selectively remove facts; simply to have those assertions which are contentious within the context of the article documented with attribution - as is required by WP:NPOV.
That sources contain a mixture of fact and opinion is neither shocking nor a slight on those sources. I have the utmost respect for sources such as The Guardian, others hold a similar position w.r.t Fox News; but I would not claim that the entire contents of either are free from opinion, slant or political positioning.
Our policies & guidelines are also clear w.r.t the granularity of facts/opinions; it is at the level of the assertion, not of the source. A quick read of the history at WP:RSN will clearly show that there is no source (publisher, author or article) which is considered automatically reliable for all assertions to be considered as facts.
Finally, and this will likely be a contentious assertion, as I understand the position of the original poster in this section, it then follows that the contrary, opposing positions should also be included, again as attributed assertions.
NB: I am not sure that we are likely to reach agreement here, and, as no other editors are commenting, am happy to close this without a consensus being reached - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hugos UNDUE and NPOV

Could someone fix that paragraph? Leaving the result out (a repudiation of the GG/SP/RP position) has a problem with NPOV. That last sentence is particularly bad. I would, but I'm crazy busy right now. and additional RS:

• http://national.deseretnews.com/article/5663/Sci-fi-fans-vote-for-diversity-at-2015-Hugo-Awards.html

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Done: [5]. (I didn't see any NPOV or UNDUE problem, but it wasn't hard to add a sentence, and it does complete the story, so I did it.) Gronky (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gronky: Is that blogspot with the voting numbers an official one? Maybe we can find a more mainstream source? — Strongjam (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeh, just found them here: [6]

I've added it now: [7]

I think I'm done now for this burst of editing. Gronky (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the Rabid Puppies slate, led by Vox Day, is Gamergate affliated has WP:BLP issues unless it sourced to a statement by Day himself; especially as the Sad Puppies slates predate GG. Suggest this should be removed, or that the association be attributed. Suggest rephrasing the section to remove "GG affliated" from this sentence, and add a follow up to say that the Hugo Awards slates & Gamergate were seen as related by (named persons). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I didn't notice anything relevant in my recent skimming of articles on this topic, but a glance at google new says that people do associate these two things:

• https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=hugo+awards+gamergate

"were seen as related by XYZ" is one way to note this connection. Or maybe the're just "similar" rather than "related". Gronky (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's covered here: "After failing to move the needle the first year, Sad Puppies organized around another slate of candidates and garnered an additional 70 or so votes last year to edge a few of their chosen authors onto the ballot. The overall voting membership wasn’t impressed with these choices, and awarded other work in every category. But this year, Sad Puppies, buoyed by Beale’s more extreme, Gamergate-affiliated campaign Rabid Puppies, managed to secure the extra votes needed to dominate the nominations." More specifically, this is what the article currently describes as "a Gamergate-affiliated splinter group led by Vox Day" (Vox Day being Beale.) I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that this has to be sourced to Beale himself; no such requirement exists. It simply has to be sourced to a reliable source, which it is. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, With respect, I do not concur that this passing mention, which appears to be opinion, is sufficient to include this as fact in Wikipedia's voice, especially with BLP implications. I would be comfortable with attributed opinion. Alternately, it might be raised at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Not sure I see the BLP implications, Day is pretty open about his support of Gamergate. If we really must we could cite SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Day. He dedicates the book to Gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Strongjam, Firstly, apologies for the delayed response. While I agree that Vox Day appears to be supportive of Gamergate (per here), I think it would be WP:SYNTH for us to use that to write that the Rabid Puppies ticket is Gamergate-affiliated, in Wikipedia's voice. Of the 4 sources that we have for this section - one does not mention Gamergate at all1; one mentions it only in passing, as an example of another "front" in a wider culture war2 (I think this angle is worth exploring); another is likely not from an independent source3; and the last mis-affliates Gamergate with the "Sad Puppies" slate, seemingly on the basis of tweets by an interested party4.
Do some sections of the Gamergate movement & supporters of the Sad Puppies & Rabid Puppies slates share common goals? I would say "absolutely", and I think we would easily find sources that would support inclusion of the same viewpoint. But that does not mean that they are "affliated", which implies a close association, which I do not believe that we have sources to state as fact. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Ah, I thought your concern was just BLP with connecting Day to Gamergate. I wouldn't use that ref as a way to connect GG to the Puppies as that's definitely synth as you say. There is definitely enough in the sources to say that they are related in someway. Although the whole paragraph as it is right now is much more than we need. — Strongjam (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Strongjam, Many thanks for your response. I do think that we have a BLP issue w.r.t connecting Day to Gamergate - in so far as it's a contentious assertion that's currently not well sourced. But I also concur that it should be easy to resolve.
ON the connection between Gamergate & the various Puppies, I would agree with you if we were to phrase as "There is definitely enough in the sources to say that they are seen as related in someway". It's (potentially?) a small difference, but I think it gets us closer aligned to what's verifiable.
I also agree that a whole paragraph is more than is required. My personal suggestion would be to include it in an expanded, explained, "culture war" section; I see the sources here making the Gamergate/Puppies connection in that context. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I am not sure how connecting Vox Day to gamergate is contentious? See, e.g., [8], a (quite lengthy) video interview he gives on the subject of gamergate, wherein he describes himself as involved and gives a long disquisition on the motives and goals he sees for the movement. It would seem to me the subject himself sees himself as somehow 'connected' to gamergate. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, I think connecting any living person with a controversy that has raged from more than a year is a contentious assertion, and, per BLP, one that should be well sourced in the article. The issue is that it's not currently well sourced in the article. As above, it should be easy; if we have verifying sources, we should cite them.
The second issue is that the sources that do seem to verify a connection (I trust in good faith that this includes the YouTube interview above), verify only personal support, not a link or affiliation between Gamergate and the Puppies campaigns. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I agree that there is an issue linking the 'puppies' with gamergate. But I still think, given his own self-declarations, linking Vox Day is totally non-contentious. What better indication of this could there be than his statements that he is 'involved' and supports gamergate? I am certainly mindful of the issues with primary sources, but when it comes to someone's subjective feelings and experiences, there is no better source. I guess my question boils down to this: what more is there to a gamergate 'link' than saying, in essence, "I'm on board?" Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, "Contentious", in this context, is a term of art. As I understand the viewpoint, above, the assertion is not contentious because we have sufficient & sufficiently reliable sourcing to verify it. If so, we should reference those sources; we currently do not. We also currently link the 'puppies' slates with Gamergate in a way which is not supported by the sources which we do reference. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the "Third Party Trolls" part in the article

Any particular reasoning for removing Allum Bokhari's comment on saying that third party trolls were provoking both sides? (DIFF) Doesn't come off as some kind of "paranoia" here. He says that there is third party trolls are provoking people, not claiming. Seems rather fair to have it in the article. GamerPro64 02:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Having been the target of a thoroughly inaccurate article by Allum Bokhari, I'm surprised we're considering using him as a source at all in any article. Gamaliel (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean, if it was worthwhile to be quoted on the BBC that can mean something. It's not like we're using his actual works here. Just something he said himself. GamerPro64 02:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A fair point, I would just caution using him as a source of any factual information, even if quoted by a more reputable news source. Editors here can hash out if and how to use a particular source, I was just expressing surprise at seeing his name here, that's all. Gamaliel (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While I have no objection to the inclusion of this bit, I'm not sure it really adds much. After all, it seems to me "there were third-party trolls" is functionally the same as saying "it was on the internet." As such, I would support removal simply to be parsimonious. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, With respect, I am not sure that these are functionally the same. The third party (as opposed to a pro-GG or anti-GG) aspect appears to be the important distinction being made by these sources. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I stand by my belief that the article is better off without this bit simply for Strunk and/or White's wonderfully tautological exhortation to "omit needless words." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, I maintain that a distinction is made in the sources, and that it is not appropriate to remove it for "verbosity reasons". Additional response below. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The use of sources authored by Allum Bokhari was previously discussed on this Talk page here. I made the point then, by which I now stand, that while it is entirely appropriate & natural for editors to feel personally aggrieved where they feel slighted by the press, it is not appropriate that such be a basis for exclusion of sources by that author from the Article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not suggest such a thing, so I hope you are not implying that I am. I merely noted his factual inaccuracy while also clearly disclosing my COI. Gamaliel (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not make such an implication. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As I stated in the section directly above yours, I'm making an effort to remove parts of the GGC that, looking back, haven't been noteworthy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the claim of third-party trolls is not noteworthy. Its can be seen as something to consider. I mean there are a lot of perspectives seen on the whole thing. Why not one more? GamerPro64 03:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

'It exists' is not a compelling argument for inclusion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64, I understand your point, but as I've said above, the generalized idea that "there might be third-party trolls online" more or less goes without saying. Without something more, I think simple economy dictates leaving it out. But, as I like to say, I am often wrong. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I just think its good that we're talking about this before throwing caution to the wind and outright removing things from the article. GamerPro64 03:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Be bold, right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course. But with an article as controversial as this, you have to still be careful what you take out. GamerPro64 03:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, The generalized idea that "there might be third-party trolls online" may more or less go without saying; but the content removed is the specific idea that a portion of the harassment may have been perpetrated by persons disinterested in the underlying controversy (difference of views). I do not concur that this is an idea that will be obvious to readers, just because it happened on the Internet. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While on a personal level I have to agree with everything Dumuzid said regarding the third party trolls narrative, this doesn't change the fact that it was covered by reputable news sources such as the Washington Post and the BBC making my opinions for the most part irrelevant. Definitely notable enough to warrant a place in the article.Brustopher (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Was it covered in those sources? Sure. Was/is it notable? Eeeeh, not really. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." There's enough coverage of it by reputable mainstream sources for it not to be undue to include these claims. Brustopher (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't link nor refer to that policy. I'm talking notable in terms of 'is it really important enough to include in the article?' to which the answer is no. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi PeterTheFourth, With respect, a number of editors here assert that it is important enough to include. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ryk72. I don't. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: to me, the specific notability language you've quoted here supports my point of view; that is though this particular small facet of the article was covered in RS, it does not merit inclusion in the article (at least in my opinion). Notability controls whether there is an article on a given topic, but not all notable information on a topic needs to be included in an article. Obviously Ryk72 disagrees with me, but I state again that in my humblest of opinions, this is just too speculative and generic to be of use. If someone said "third-party trolls from Freedonia are interfering," or "third-party trolls interested in radical photosynthesis are harassing people," then we'd have a real addition. As it is, I think we gain more from streamlining in this case than inclusion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also important to note just how tenacious this is. The quote in question is an article mentioning an opinion by Bokhari. Is Bokhari so important that one offhand reference to his opinion in a larger article is worth pulling out and highlighting? I don't see how it is. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, I am not sure exactly what you mean by how tenancious. I do note from some of the comments below that it may not be clear that my concern is not primarily for the removal of the quote by Bokhari, but for the subsequent removal of the mention of Internet trolls at all. I hope that this makes my position clearer, and more understandable. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Good practice for an informative article is to be clear and upfront with the most basic facts of who, what, when, where, why, and how. Now I think we're all in agreement the most important "what" of the article is harassment. It should also be apparent then that the associated "who" (third party trolls) is also very important information for the article's readers. Rhoark (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's important to be cautious about what exactly we're discussing here; no sources we can use for statements of fact have said anything about "third party trolls." Even Bokhari isn't asserting that. The issue is whether it's worth highlighting Bokhari's personal opinion that there is a (vague, unspecified) group of well-known trolls working to stir up 'both sides.' (Note that he does not assert that the trolls are third-party or uninvolved, merely that they're manipulating both 'sides'. Implying that this means that eg. the trolls aren't part of Gamergate, or even the people behind Gamergate who are trolling everyone involved to keep the fire burning, would be WP:SYNTH. In fact, that's my reading of what he says -- when he says a "well-known trolling group", I would assume he's talking about parts of 4chan and /pol/, which other sources say, in much more detail, are the ones who initially got Gamergate rolling.) Beyond that, I don't think that it's worth hightlighting; nothing about him makes him particularly relevant. And once you strip away the WP:SYNTH, what he's saying isn't particularly interesting; without more detail about this 'well-known' trolling group he personally feels is responsible, "there are trolls involved" is essentially a non-statement. The question is therefore whether his opinion here, which gets a one-sentence mention in one other article, is worth covering here, or whether we'd be giving it WP:UNDUE weight (especially, again, given the risk of WP:SYNTH problems that your misreading of it highlighted.) I think this sort of focus on it would definitely be undue. --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: To clarify this discussion isn't just about Bokhari. But also claims made by WaPo and Vice of a similar nature. [9] Also the sourced information removed from the article did not use the "third-party trolls" lingo which was introduced to the conversation by Peter in his edit summaries.[10] Would you oppose the restoration of this information (perhaps slightly rephrased)? Brustopher (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the comment at the top of the section was about Bokhari, so that's what I focused on. The other one is more complicated, but I don't think that the sources for that are really sufficient to support its inclusion. One source was the Bokhari quote, which I mentioned above. The second, the Vice article, has the same problems I highlighted in my reading of how we were using Bokhari, above; they say that trolls are involved, not that (as we implied) the trolls aren't part of Gamergate. The relevant quote when you search for 'troll' in there actually seems to imply the opposite: "I can’t get with that, but during our tweets he messages me a sentiment I can side with, regarding the continual stirring of GamerGate by Twitter trolls: “Talk without progress becomes stagnant.”" My reading of that is that the Gamergate supporter he's talking to there is saying that the trolls are a good thing because they're adding 'progress', not that he's saying that they're outsiders. The only source that really supported the statement is the WP, which says that "there's even speculation that the worst comes from Internet trolls who don't feel strongly about either side of the subject but just want to cause trouble." I don't feel that that, on its own, passes the three-part test in WP:UNDUE; one source saying "unnamed people have speculated about this" isn't really enough to support the idea that the view has prominent adherents. And that one line is not representative of the tone of even that one article, so again, pulling it out and highlighting it here feels like it's giving it WP:UNDUE weight; if this is a prominent viewpoint, given the amount of ink that's been spilled over the controversy, then it should be easy to find one or two reliable sources that actually discuss it in-depth rather than just mentioning it in passing like that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you're right in your interpretation regarding the Diver quote. He must have phrased what he was trying to say badly, because otherwise Diver is endorsing trolling as a method of progress himself, which seems highly unlikely. The part I thought supported the claim was the "These actions are almost universally performed by lone online psychos." by TotalBiscuit. Perhaps this can be rephrased to note that Gamergate supporters argue that it's a vocal minority within them who are doing the trolling and harassment? Brustopher (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While I admire the intent to reach a compromise; unfortunately, I feel that it might be drawing a very long bow to use that particular phrasing. I don't see that it's supported by either the WaPost/Tsukuyama or Vice/Diver sources. I think it's clear that the Gamergate supporters argue there that it's external trolls. There's even speculation that the worst comes from Internet trolls who don't feel strongly about either side of the subject but just want to cause trouble - Tsukuyama, may be instructive here.

I do consider that it may be where the quoted "Gamergate supporters" are making a distinction between the "controversy" & the "movement". Threats & harassment are undoubtedly part of the former; whether they are part of the latter seems, for many, a matter of opinion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't feel that "they don't feel strongly" means "third party." My reading of that is that the "trolling group" Bokhari is referring to is 4chan, whose users formed Gamergate's initial core (I honestly can't think what else he would mean by a "well-known trolling group", since they're the only really well known one involved). Similarly, when the other quotes say that the trolls "don't really care about either side", my interpretation is that they're saying that many people involved in this who don't actually feel strongly about the things they say they feel strongly about -- in other words, that there are people within Gamergate who don't care about ethics or anything and whose only real goal is to stir up as much trouble as possible. This comes back to a more core issue that nobody actually has any way to declare someone in or outside of Gamergate, of course, which is something else that many sources highlight and part of the reason we're cautious about defining it. I don't feel, though, that there is a meaningful distinction between the 'controversy' and the 'movement', or that the 'movement' is a clearly-defined thing. (My problem with that reading is that it feels like you're implicitly saying "someone who is just using Gamergate as an excuse to harass people and who doesn't actually care about ethics is by definition not part of the "movement", which isn't really in any of the sources and which doesn't really seem like a reasonable conclusion to me; interpreting it that way lets you define Gamergate however you like by throwing out everyone who you disagree with, but it doesn't really match what any of the sources -- even the ones used for this sentence -- really say.) And, with all of that said: I also feel that the only real purpose the statement served in the article was to try and make the above WP:SYNTH by implicitly trying to get the reader to interpret it through that filter. If you just go by what it actually says, it's not worth covering; we already have plenty of sources covering the difficulty of trying to figure out what people actually want, what their goals are, whether they actually mean what they say and so on. "Some people involved in this might just be trolling" and "this is a huge incoherent mess of people with divergent aims that aren't always easy to quantify" is already covered at much more length in the 'Gamergate activities' section. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It's rather contradictory to describe a trolling group as a "core" of anything. Trolling by definition will be whatever it needs to be to cause drama. There are trolls from many sides and sites that don't form the core of feminism or gamers or game developers or journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources (including one of the few academic sources we have) have described 4chan, especially the members who participated in those early chats, as being the original source of Gamergate and the people whose astroturfing campaigns initially pushed it into the media spotlight. Sure, this doesn't mean that they're the entire thing -- most sources describe it as picking up unrelated people around the edges after they got it rolling -- but they're clearly described as central in many places, so I think it's bizarre to imply that they aren't part of the "movement", to the extent that that's concretely-defined. The chat logs analyzed by Heron, Belford, and Goker are one of the few places we can concretely say that we're looking at Gamergate's organizers in their own words. And they describe the tone of discussion in depth; there was a deliberate effort to cultivate a palpable narrative for public consumption (focusing on journalism one one hand and feminism on the other), while internal discussions focused on personal grudges against Quinn and a desire to destroy her personally. For example, one early member of the moment is quoted there as saying that "./v should be in charge of the gaming journalism aspect of it. /pol should be in charge of the feminism aspect, and /b should be in charge of harassing her into killing herself." These are not all the members of Gamergate, but they're the people who pushed it most fervently early on, so I think it's silly to imply that they're not part of it just because their motivations are terrible. Regardless, I think that if we want to cover trolls within Gamergate, Heron, Belford, and Goker are a better source, since they're analyzing them directly rather than just speculating. --Aquillion (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, With respect, I'm concerned that there's a lot of reading into what's in the sources. The thought that Bokhari is suggesting 4chan seems unverifiable WP:OR, and t.b.h. while I personally think it more likely that the reference is to /baphomet/, we're better sticking to the sources than reading into them. There's also a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH in equating 4chan and Gamergate; while there may be overlap between the two, they are not congruent. The thought that there are people within Gamergate who don't care about ethics or anything and whose only real goal is to stir up as much trouble as possible is an interesting theory; but we'd be better to find noteworthy sources to whom we could attribute it.
For core issue that nobody actually has any way to declare someone in or outside of Gamergate, of course, which is something else that many sources highlight and part of the reason we're cautious about defining it, again this is interesting, but ultimately it's not so relevant if we stick to documenting the various opinions & points of view as attributed opinion. We don't need to define it, just document the range of viewpoints.
And we don't need to second guess whether people are being sincere or disingenuous; just document what they said, and what was said about them; each attributed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. My point is that that those are equally-valid ways to interpret what the sources say, so it is WP:SYNTH to use them to assert that the trolls are third-party, or to use them in a way that would imply that. In context, "there are trolls within Gamergate" or "a significant portion of Gamergate consists of trolls" is a reasonable way to read all the sources we're dealing with here, especially since it agrees with what many other sources say explicitly; yet some people are arguing that we can use them to (essentially) say the opposite, to say that the trolls are not part of Gamergate. Obviously we can't do that. It would be totally be WP:SYNTH to use those specific quotes to say, explicitly, that 4chan is part of Gamergate (but, fortunately, we have plenty of other sources to rely on for that.) My point is that they can be interpreted that way, especially in the context of the overarching coverage, which makes it WP:OR to use them to state definitively that there are "third party" trolls involved, which is what the OP seems to want to do; and that, for the most part, the way people have tried to use them in the past has been WP:SYNTH to try and imply that the trolls aren't part of Gamergate, when that's not really what those sources say. In other words, a quote like Bokhari's that fails to specify the "well-known trolling group" he's talking about adds nothing to the article on top of what's already there (because we need to commit WP:OR to assert or even imply that he's talking about something other than 4chan, too.) You're asserting that when he talks about trolls, he represents a different spot on a "range of viewpoints" than eg. Heron, Belford, and Goker; but that assertion is entirely WP:SYNTH on your part -- nothing in his words contradicts theirs, or implies anything different. Therefore, we should simply go with the more detailed and reliable source here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are any sources which reliably verify that all of 4chan is a part of Gamergate (either the movement or the controversy meanings), but would be interested to review any which might be provided. I'm also not sure why we should consider Heron, Belford and Goker to be reliable for anything more than attributed opinion - Scotsmen though they be. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Heron, Belford, Goker article points out that on forums (which I assume include 4chan) there were a small group of people spamming threads. While likely not a reliable source, I'm fairly certain I recall moot mentioning in his 8 hour long farewell FAQ that 4chan GG threads were posted on by a small proportion of /v/ posters. Brustopher (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Story to Keep an Eye On

[11]

This is the story of a young man from Florida who masqueraded as several different personas, among them a gamergate supporter. He was arrested for making terrorist threats and, I think it's fair to say, engaged in plenty of online harassment. The broader story has gotten plenty of 'pick up,' especially in Australia, but the gamergate aspect has not. As of right now, I don't think it's anything we need to put in the article, but coverage may change or increase. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

[12] This is a better source on the guy, though it doesn't cover his GamerGate posting or his connections with Breitbart, which is of course where it would become of interste in relation to this article. If some of the stuff I'm seeing in primary sources gets decent secondary source coverage I'm thinking a sentence or might be warranted. Artw (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

An incident where an internet troll is actually a terrorist. What a time to be alive. GamerPro64 21:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah apparently he played everyone: used the GG hashtag on twitter, wrote articles under other names, wrote for the Daily Kos under yet another name, spoke with both Milo and Wu on both sides of that fence...if anything it's a good reason to argue again that statements need to be attributed to folks.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, Kung Fu Man. I was just thinking how it shows the weakness of attribution in our new digital world. We're probably both right. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of "no true Scotsman" spin going on right now, it is true. I would treat it all with a grain of salt and remember that "massive internet troll with an obsession with false flags and an interest in harming people" is pretty much the quintessential definition of a GamerGate, minus the odd right wing demagogue or gaslit chump. Anyway, if we get any sources that deal with this in depth we will see. Artw (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a prime example of the type of "third party troll" discussed above. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

SMH does have an updated story that mentions Gamergate, but I don't see any reason for inclusion. Unless there are some charges added in the future that relate to GG, in which case we should update the first sentence in the Law enforcement section. It appears his connection to GG has nothing to do with what he was arrested for. — Strongjam (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's another piece talking about how he liked to take both sides of a variety of controversial topics. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Another source: The real terrorist threat - Markos Moulitsas, The Hill Goldberg worked closely with conservative news outlet Breitbart on efforts to discredit the Black Lives Matter movement, tried tirelessly to smear human rights groups including the Human Rights Law Center and Amnesty International, and was an avid participant in the “Gamergate” movement, a misogynist effort to drive out feminists from the video game industry. Artw (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As a heads-up, there is an article for Joshua Ryne Goldberg now. Artw (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Aerannis

So I was reading a review of a game on Destructoid, on this game called Aerannis and it mentions in the first paragraph that the character Vivian James cameos in it. Seeing how that character is considered to be GamerGate's "mascot", maybe it would be worth mentioning in the "Gaming industry response" section. GamerPro64 22:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is the only press mention of the Vivian James aspect it would be undue to include. Brustopher (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ethics claims

We need to revisit the ethics description. Fundamentally, there are two concerns presented by GamerGate:

• Reviewers are too close to some developers, leading to conflicts of interest and potentially biased reviews that require disclosure. In particular, claims of financial ties (eg Patreon), close friendships, gifts, and writing about ex-colleagues.
• Journalists are overly influenced by social criticism, leading to pushing a political agenda in the writing

I don't have a lot of time for the second, and the first has had such minor examples put forward that I'm not overly impressed, either. That said, these two lines have been the central tenants of their ethics claims since the thing started. We've been covering the second, and I'd agree that anti-social criticism is the key element of the movement, as per the sources, and they do tend to tie ethic and social justice together, but from the start their main ethics call has been for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

In regard to sources:

• "They have called for journalists with conflicts of interest to disclose relevant personal relationships or avoid writing altogether about the work of their friends." (BBC)
• (In regard to the start of GG): "However, this further provoked a debate about ethics and conflicts of interest in gaming journalism." (IBT)
• (Again in regard to the start) "The theory caught fire on sites such as 4chan and Reddit, causing some gamers to aggressively pursue potential conflicts of interest between the people who create games and those who write about them." (Inside Higher Ed)
• "This activity fostered the idea of a network of friends who had financial stakes in promoting each other’s careers. The Patreon concept was seized upon by Gamergaters – though there are larger ethical issues to address, such as the alleged practice of publishers offering YouTube stars money to cover their games positively." (The Guardian)
• "Some claim that the gaming industry and the journalists who cover it have grown too close. Several gaming sites have started changing their policies to prevent possible conflicts of interest: Kotaku, for example, now forbids its writers from donating money to indie designers on Patreon, a Kickstarter for indie games." (Time)

Gamergaters do claim that journalists are pushing an ideology, and that this is an ethical problem. But their other (major) line is arguing that there are conflicts of interest between developers and journalists that require disclosure.

Accordingly, I've changed the first line of the debate over ethics allegations to reflect this, from:

Some Gamergate supporters contend that their actions are driven by concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues.

(Which is entirely focused on the second of the concerns above) to:

Some Gamergate supporters contend that their actions are driven by concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are creating conflicts of interest. In particular, they perceive a "network of friends", in which developers and journalists have formed personal and financial ties, and allege that these may lead to bias in reporting. They have also argued that these relationships provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues.

I don't think we can ignore the primary call for disclosure of conflicts of interest, especially as that is what led to the only positive result in clarifying some ethics policies. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the interpretation that they're clearly separate things. The Guardian, for instance, describes the 'network of friends' allegation as a way Gamergate explains social criticism: "...many games journalists who sympathise with their artistic and political aims have championed them." Heron, Belford, and Goker say similar things -- that, yes, some people have become involved without caring about the core conspiracy, but that at heart Gamergate is driven by a desire to explain and push back against what its members see as an unethical conspiracy to advance progressive social issues. And either way, wording the ethics section in a way that implies that the conflict-of-interest concerns are independent of the conspiracy allegation and then putting it first is clearly giving it WP:UNDUE weight; the sources focus a lot more on the core allegation of a conspiracy to advance social issues than they do on the network-of-friends and conflicts-of-interests that Gamergate has used to support that allegation. But beyond that, the sources that go into detail on the ideological makeup of Gamergate and the overarching beliefs and goals driving it are mostly clear that the allegations of conflicts of interest are simply part of a larger accusation that there is a conspiracy to advance progressive causes. You said yourself that you're unhappy with those sources; that is because none of them go into depth -- they all devote one or two throwaway sentences to the allegations without detailing them. All the sources that go into depth make it clear that the allegations are part of a coherent accusation of a broad gaming-media conspiracy. --Aquillion (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to interpret their calls for disclosure over conflicts of interest as part of a conspiracy to shut down social criticism. That's a viable interpretation. But fundamentally, from the outset, Gamergate has been arguing that they are opposed to unethical journalism primarily because of perceived conflicts of interest between developers and journalists, and this is reflected in the sources. Most of the sources also go on to focus on the harassment, and some view the ethics complaints per your interpretation. But this isn't about interpretations - this is about stating clearly what their concerns are, and then looking at why they raise them and if they are viable.

In regard to The Guardian, you seem to be missing the relevant part: The full quote is:

"Which brings us to the subject of money – another Gamergate grievance. Because Twine developers do not have access to the vast marketing budgets of major studios, many games journalists who sympathise with their artistic and political aims have championed them. Some writers have contributed to crowdfunding appeals for independent games. On a site called Patreon, both games journalists and developers have solicited donations from friends and fans.

This activity fostered the idea of a network of friends who had financial stakes in promoting each other’s careers. The Patreon concept was seized upon by Gamergaters – though there are larger ethical issues to address, such as the alleged practice of publishers offering YouTube stars money to cover their games positively." [13]

You are correct in your statement that they are saying that the financial backing is due to agreeing with the developer's aims. But the problem The Guardian is referencing is that this creates financial conflicts of interest. This is the ethics claim I'm pointing to, and the one which is a core part of Gamergate's ethics claims. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation; it is how most reliable sources have interpreted it, when they discuss it in depth. And you are flatly incorrect in your statement that "from the outset, Gamergate has been arguing that they are opposed to unethical journalism primarily because of perceived conflicts of interest between developers and journalists, and this is reflected in the sources." Again, read Heron, Belford, and Goker, which analyzes and discusses the early arguments that drove Gamergate in great detail. Read any one of the six sources for the conspiracy-theory allegations, all of which make clear that they're the core of Gamergate's ethics concerns. From the CS Monitor: "So they coalesced around the #gamergate hashtag on social media, claiming they were out to expose a gaming conspiracy." From Daily Dot: "To Gamergate denizens, the gaming press is unethical because it acknowledges social issues in video games. When Gamergate proponents claim a concern for “ethics in journalism,” this is nearly always what they are talking about." From Singal: "And every, every, every substantive conversation/forum/encounter I've had with folks from your movement has led me to believe that a large part of the reason for its existence is discomfort with what you see as the burgeoning influence of so-called social-justice warriors in the gaming world." From CJR: "At core, the movement is a classic culture war. Video games are becoming more sophisticated and appeal to a greater diversity of people. Naturally, debates about what is a legitimate game, who gets to be a gamer, and which critics get to define those terms arise—powerful questions for any evolving art form." The Guardian (in your quote above!) makes it clear that the issue is that Gamergate feels that these conflicts are because journalists sympathize with the artistic and political aims of those games -- the conflicts of interest are described as a result of the unethical media conspiracy, not as a separate issue. The few sources you have cited that don't approach it from that angle say very little about it at all; the sources that go into depth always come back to the same central description. Other coverage coming to that conclusion is NYmag, CS monitor, Forbes, washington post, Ars Technica and The Guardian (a few of these may be repeats of the above; I copy-pasted from an old discussion along these lines.) Yes, there are a lot of people involved (and therefore it's hard to make sweeping statements), but most of the sources that discuss what Gamergate wants make it clear that their concerns are over what they see as unethical attempts to promote social criticism, art-games, and things of that nature. The allegations that unethical conflicts of interest have been used to promote them is (mostly) part of that core argument and part of that central conspiracy theory, not a separate thing. --Aquillion (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that those sources are saying exclusively what you think they do. But again, you are mixing interpretations with the claims. Surely you are not denying that Gamergate has been arguing, from the outset, that journalists need to disclose conflicts of interest? Nor that they have spent countless wasted hours digging up examples of possible conflicts through Twitter feeds, Facebook, Kickstarter and Patreon? I'm happy to accept that is is a cover, but it is very clear that they have been claiming conflicts of interest between developers and journalists as a central plank of their "actually, it is all about ethics in game journalism" stance. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Bilby, with all due respect, your line of argument here rings of WP:TRUTH insofar as you seem more concerned with truth than verification. What any of us might deny or advance is fine as far as it goes, but that's not the metric by which we judge the material that goes in to these articles. It might not be a shock that Aquillion's interpretation seems to me the correct one, but so far you haven't really proffered any backup for your view, merely ipse dixit. If you have reliable sources to point to, I would honestly be interested to see them. Until then this is a bit like that famous philosopher Marx (no, the other one) when he said "who are you going to believe, me, or your own lying eyes?" Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. The sources have been saying that the ethics claims relate, at least in part, to claims about conflicts of interest between developers and journalists. I've provided sources, and this isn't an extreme claim, that is supported by the sources we already use. The problem is that we've been relating an interpretation, in which we've been leaving out the actual claims being made. My feeling is that we need to present both, even if the claim itself is part of a larger picture. - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

But the sources also say that the point of the conflict-of-interest claims is that Gamergate seeks to prove that there was an unethical conspiracy to advance a progressive agenda, art-games, and so on; all of the sources that go into depth on them make this point, more or less. You're denying that (or arguing that we should present the two as separate), yet all you can produce in terms of sources are a few places that barely talk about what Gamergate's ethics concerns are at all; I've responded to that with sources that go into depth on what they are, and those sources make it clear that the ethics concerns Gamergate is focused on are fundamentally about the belief that there is a larger conspiracy to push progressive politics in gaming. Those are the "actual claims being made"; those are, according to the most detailed sources, what Gamergate describes itself as in its own words. The conflicts-of-interest accusations Gamergate has leveled against what it sees as its ideological opponents is part of the larger picture; the problem is that you are trying to present it in a way that directly omits (and even obscures) that larger picture, whereas the original version (before your edits) made it clear. The "unethical conspiracy" is the core conflict of interest Gamergate seeks to expose; they're the same thing. Some of the journals that have only touched on the issue in passing have used different terms or emphasized different aspects, but the ones that go in-depth (like Singal or Heron, Belford, and Goker) make it explicit how they are part of the same core accusition. It would be misleading of us to word the article in a way that obscures that central point. That is why, again, the core problem with your edits is that (as you noted) the sources you cited aren't very good for this aspect, because they don't really touch on the details; the ones that do touch on the details are explicit that, to the extent that it's possible to identify a "core" ideology of Gamergate, "conflicts of interest" and "unethical conspiracy to advance a progressive agenda" are the same accusation in slightly different words. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is hard to respond to, as it seems we are on different tangents. I'll try again, and see if I can be clearer.

• At this point, I don't care why people believe GG is pointing to conflicts of interest as an ethics concern. I'm interested in what they are claiming. The "why" is also important, but is covered after we state what the claims are.
• Gamergaters point to two ethics issues: a) journalists and reviewers pushing an ideological stance (involving claims of collusion and subjectivity), b) journalists having conflicts of interest with developers. Both of which can be well sourced.
• Prior to my changes, there was coverage of a), but no mention of b).
• I have no problem with saying that the "actually, it is about ethics in games journalism" boils down to an anti-social critique stance. None at all.
• I also have no problem with saying that all of the "collusion to push social justice claims" have been debunked, but we can't say the same for the conflicts of interest.

The sources tend to be brief on the COI side of things, mostly because Gamergate has failed to come up with any significant issues, and their initial one - Grayson and Quinn - was debunked, as were a number of later ones (if they were considered worth noticing at all). But the sources make reference to it consistently, and occasionally acknowledge that there is a (minor) issue there. I remain happy to focus on the collusion and social criticism claims, but per the sources we need to make some mention of conflicts of interest. - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you propose as added or edited text? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I proposed that at the beginning. However, at the moment I'll cope with what we have right now, with the conflict of interest claim moved to be bottom of the paragraph. Structurally it is less than ideal, but at least it is stated. - Bilby (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with your second bullet point (and therefore everything following it); my reading of the sources is that most of them say that, to Gamergate, these are the same issue. "Gamergaters point to two ethics issues" is flatly untrue and directly contradicts most sources, nor have you really presented any sources that particularly seem to support it (while I've produced extensive, detailed sources digging into the issue which explains how Gamergate is about one core allegation.) I also completely disagree with your final bullet point; all the alleged conflict-of-issue concerns Gamergate has raised have been unambiguously and completely rejected by most reliable sources. The sources we have unambiguously say that all ethics issues raised by Gamergate have been debunked, and we clearly cannot say or imply otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

They haven't all been debunked. Of the three references you added, one says that they were debunked or dealt with, and the "dealt with" refers to the COI issues [14]; one only says that many ethics concerns were debunked (by extension, not necessarily all [15]); and the third is straight opinion piece that doesn't really say that they were debunked or otherwise, just that the ethics line was never coherent and failed to present evidence (although it clearly notes that the ethics concerns are unsupported) [16]. This is why I want to be wary of the wording. The COI concerns are mostly rubbish, with either non-existent problems or incredibly minor issues that are insignificant at best. But a couple of have been genuine, if minor, and weren't debunked as such. So we need to be careful about dismissing this side outright.

In regard to sources talking about Gamergate and conflicts of interest concerns - we've got plenty, even from what we're already using. Sourcing that this is an issue Gamergate looked to isn't a problem - if nothing else, that was the part of where this started with Quinn and Grayson (even though the claims about them proved to be false). - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Some channers spreading false rumors about someone and setting out to destroy her life on account of a letter full of {debunked} claims from her ex may be less convincingly ethical than you think. Artw (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that is exactly as ethical as I think. It just isn't the point. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• What you need aren't sources about "conflict of interest concerns"; what you need are sources that say that the conflict of interest concerns are distinct from the culture war and the belief that there is a conspiracy to advance progressive causes, which you've repeatedly failed to produce. According to the sources we have, Gamergate's ethics concerns are single complaint that progressives have used unethical methods (like the conflicts of interest mentioned) to influence journalists -- with Patreon, for example, the point of Gamergate's allegations (as The Guardian says) was that they believed that these journalists were supporting these games because they wanted to advance a progressive or art-game agenda, and that the Patreon was evidence of that. The allegations make no sense in any other context; the unethical aspect is that Gamergate believed that journalists, who wanted these games to succeed because of their progressive agenda, were giving them undue coverage, and that highlighting Patreon was a way to expose this. Similarly, we have detailed sources (like Heron, Belford, and Goker) that trace the core allegations against Quinn back to a belief among Gamergate members that her game was only receiving the coverage it did because of a progressive conspiracy (composed of a network of friends which could be identified by their social and financial ties.) There are no sources that indicate that there two distinct "strands" of ethics allegations the way you're implying -- there is just one core allegation of a progressive conspiracy backed by sinister collusion. --Aquillion (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to say that they are distinct. I just want to clearly state the claim, and we have plenty of sources that say that. If we then want to say that those conflicts of interest claims are part of a culture war, go ahead. That isn't a problem. But we do need to state that they exist, and that they are part of the ethics issues that Gamergate is claiming to address. - Bilby (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What exists? Conflicts of interest in gaming journalism? None exist that GamerGate have address. They don't get credit for real world concerns they've ignored any more than they do for addressing fictional concerns. Artw (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to the claims existing, not their validity. That's a separate issue. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The version before your changes did cover them. As I've been saying, this sentence covers everything you are trying to add: "...arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues." The 'close relationships between journalists and developers that provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy' are the conflicts of interest that you're referring to. If you're ceding the point that these are the same thing, then we can revert your edits and go back to where it was before; as a result of your changes, the current version talks about them twice (once in that section and once further down), mistakenly giving the impression that they are separate allegations. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not the same thing as conflicts of interest. It is related, but not identical. We have two claims - close relationships leading to conflicts of interest; and close relationships leading to pushing a shared ideology. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Bilby, I think we all agree that there are two claims and that they are not identical, but what I see is that they are inextricably intertwined. To take an extreme (and silly) example, imagine a group called "The Dumuzidians." Imagine my group's main issue is that banks should be more closely regulated because they're run by lizard people. To take this belief and say 'Dumuzidians believe in bank reform; also they believe in lizard people' would not accurately reflect what is actually going on. It's a clumsy analogy, but I hope you take my meaning. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to arguing that they are intertwined. But while I don't see your lizard analogy applying, (if only because we're not talking about a group with a single shared vision), if we imagine that your Dumuzidians have been arguing that interest rates are too high, banks are badly run, and bankers are all lizards, we'd be remiss to only mention two out of the three. In this case we spend almost the entire article saying that Gamergaters are against social criticism and involved in ongoing harassment. But we don't mention that they believe that the gaming industry suffers from conflicts of interest. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry guys, it's been a year, if you wanted us to take your interest in ethics seriously you should have shown an actual interest in ethics. Artw (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah man! Truly there is no more notorious a gamergater than Bilby. His notorious reputation for long term gamergating precedes him. There is no way whatsoever he could be making a good faith effort to make the article more informative. Go back to 8chan and take your so-called ethics with you, notorious gamergater Bilby! (On a more serious note I accidentally pressed enter before finishing my editing summary which was meant to end "We have multiple sources for the "potential for ethics but well is poisoned" argument, but haven't gone into into further detail. Definitely not UNDUE.")Brustopher (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The polite term is sealion, Brustopher. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher, PeterTheFourth, and Artw: More light, less heat, please. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no meaningful ethics controversy. Compare Gamergate, for example, to the discussion of ethics in food journalism launched circa 2001 in and around Michael Ruhlman’s The Soul Of A Chef. Here, a group of cooks and writers questioned a widespread practice in magazine journalism, in which restaurants comp’d reviewer meals. Widespread discussion ensued about the economics of food writing, about the nature of reviewing and matters of taste, about whether magazine food writing could be carried on without some form of industry support, about doxxing. Yep: there was a huge flap over publishing a photograph of the LA Times restaurant reviewer and whether this was or was not appropriate. The discussion was carried on in magazines, newspapers, trade journals, and other professional fora.

No one discussed anyone's sex life. No one threatened to kill or rape anyone. No one had to flee their home, cancel their lectures, find a new job in a new city, befriend their local SWAT team. A specific and widespread practice was identified, its dangers were outlined, its advantages were also outlined. Much was written. This is what a controversy about ethics in journalism looks like.

Compare this to Gamergate. A year has past. Not a single significant conflict of interest has been raised, or remedied; the contrary view is reduced to looking for the possibility that when CJR says they were debunked, they don't literally say every last single one cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die. Indeed, if journalistic misdeeds there be, they lie in the use of Wikipedia, Breitbart, and reddit by quasi-journalists to defame progressive voices. The vast preponderance of discussion has been, and continues to be, centered on female software developers and critics, not journalists. Yes, there may have been and may still be a potential for discussing the nature of video game journalism, and perhaps Bilby and ForbiddenRocky will contribute to that discussion by publishing their views elsewhere. When they do, and when the Columbia Journalism Review and the Poynter Institute discuss them, we’ll be eager to discuss them too.

The ethical controversy here is the incessant and dangerous torque being applied to Wikipedia to demand that mainstream media and academic journals are all inherently biased and should therefore be disregarded. I thought we were supposed to have a vacation from that. Oh well. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We already clearly state that the harassment and misogyny buried any chance of Gamergate creating a meaningful discussion of ethics. That's not the issue at hand. Whether or not any meaningful discussion was impossible, or, indeed, happened, stating what the views of Gamergate were is an important part of the discussion. The sources make that statement - they describe what Gamergaters claimed they were about. They then dismiss those claims, mostly because the overriding harassment prevented those claims from being discussed, or because they weren't the core issue. We don't. We dismiss the claims without stating what they were. The correction here is to provide a clearer statement about what the ethics claims were, in particular their issue of perceived conflicts of interest between journalists and developers. - Bilby (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

But this cannot be done without original research. Numerous writers, on the other hand, have reported that they sought a coherent explanation of the supposedly perceived conflicts of interest and were unable to do so. See, for example, Zachary Jason in Boston Magazine [17] for one example. Editors are intelligent adults; they are quite capable of discussing policy when outsiders are throwing mud and poisoning wells; in a news room, that’s a daily occurrence. We don’t state the claims because there were no genuine claims. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources which state what their claims were. We especially have sources which state that they believed that there were conflicts of interest between journalists and developers. Fortunately, we won't need to engage in original research. As an aside, I think you may have linked to the wrong article, or I'm missing the relevant section. But either way, I agree that Gamergate has had trouble clearly stating their aims. With that said, they have been clear that they want disclosure because of conceived conflicts of interest issues, even though their evidence of any significant problems has been largely lacking. - Bilby (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

But the sources which go into depths on the claims make it clear that they are about an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues. Your parsing (in separating them out into two separate things) is WP:OR; you're taking one-line asides to try and use them to argue against the bulk of sources that go into more detail by inventing a "two ethics accusitions" framing that isn't really supported. And as far as I can tell, you're the only one contributing to this discussion who really thinks that the sources support that divide. --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Some do. And some specifically address the conflicts of interest issue. We just need to mention that it exists, as per the sources - we don't need to waste a lot of time in the article on it. - Bilby (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The first source used in the ethics section is [18]. It states "Gamergate denizens’ concerns boil down to two basic ideas". The first is the COI issues I'm referring to, leading to biased coverage. In particular, "Pandering journalists could be giving good reviews and promotion to mediocre products to please friends in the business". The second is what you are referring to: Gamergaters claim that "the gaming press is unethical because it acknowledges social issues in video games". The article correctly goes on to say that it is the second issue that is most often referred to, and I mostly agree with that. Accordingly, I understand that we would want to focus mostly on the second issue, and we do. But I do think we need to make sure that we fully acknowledge the first on the way. - Bilby (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the lede somewhat overstate the coordination?

It's one of the first things mentioned, yet in the bulk of the article, takes up only a small part. HalfHat 12:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The proposition has been argued here before, and rejected, that the people targeting Gamergate’s victims, using Gamergate’s name, as part of Gamergate’s well-publicized "operations" to drive women out of the software industry, were not really part of Gamergate, or were conducted by other people entirely who just happened to be using the same name. This seems far-fetched, and of course since Gamergate has neither membership nor spokespersons, it is inherently unprovable. Perhaps the true Gamergate are aficionados of waffles who meet in a KC basement on alternate Sundays, and perhaps the misogynist harassment stems from impostors using the same name; in that case, it is the impostors who are notable and whom the reliable sources discuss at length, as reflected in the consensus language of the current lede. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me to be well-supported by the "Coordination of Harassment" section and important enough to deserve its place in the lead, even if the absolute number of words is not huge. Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying not at all, just less prominently. HalfHat 20:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you turn that in to some sort of concrete suggestion? As it is, I'm not sure how to make it less prominent in the lead other than by removing it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Article could do with more regarding the coordination via the chans though, mostly doesn't because of sourcing issues. Artw (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Halfhat, Thanks for raising the question. On review, I am inclined to agree with you. While it is well understood that the lead section need not include citations; it remains important that the information included in the lead section reflect the body of the article.
In this case, I can find no information within the article which supports the lead as currently written - The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. I do note that the lead section has changed since your original comment; but perhaps not functionally so.
Reviewing the "Coordination of Harassment" section (as highlighted by Dumuzid, I do find the following:

• 4chan's founder, Christopher Poole, banned all discussion of Gamergate on the site as more attacks occurred, leading to Gamergate supporters using 8chan as their central hub.;
• Ars Technica reported that a series of 4chan discussion logs suggests that Twitter sockpuppet accounts were used to popularize the Gamergate hashtag. Heron, Belford, and Goker, analyzing the logs, found that early Gamergate IRC discussions focused on coordinating the harassment of Quinn by using astroturf campaigns to push attacks against her into mainstream view.

which I do not believe sufficiently supports the lead section.FWIW, I'm not convinced that the "Coordination of Harassment" section title accurately describes the content.
Looking further afield, I find:

• After the blog post, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign. The people behind this campaign initially referred to it as the "quinnspiracy", the original name for their IRC channel, but quickly adopted the Twitter hashtag "Gamergate" after it was coined by actor Adam Baldwin near the end of August. in the "History" section.

which kind of seems like it might be somehow linked; but again seems insufficient for the lead section as currently written.

In summary, I do not believe that we currently have sourcing for the text in the lead section, and it should, therefore, be removed. That is not to say that sourcing does not exist or cannot be found (I would suggest that the sources used be mined for additional information on this point; this source seems like it might be useful); and does not in any way speak to the truth of the matter.

None of the above intends to mitigate or justify harassing behaviour. Harassment is wrong and I condemn it outright. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's unambiguously cited here: "Heron, Belford, and Goker, analyzing the logs, found that early Gamergate IRC discussions focused on coordinating the harassment of Quinn by using astroturf campaigns to push attacks against her into mainstream view." That's one of the few academic sources to go into depth on the controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

More lede stuff

Hey. I think it's odd to trim out the 'harassment campaign' part of the lede, particularly as RS note that Gamergate was mainly organised around harassing a set of targets, and only nebulously mention 'harassment' until the sentence after mentions the campaign with no prior explanation for the goals (driving feminists out of the industry). I've reverted back to the most recent stable version of the lede we had. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher 'Last consensus version' here meaning the last stable version of the lede. That DHeyward had edit warred that into the lede doesn't mean it had consensus. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! That was the compromise version between lying about the mass shooting and removing it completely. It most definitely had consensus as the compromise version. Please stop edit warring over the removal. As you did again yesterday. --DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think his objection is to the change from "It is most notable for a harassment campaign that sought to drive..." to "It is most notable for harassment against..." That part of the change definitely doesn't enjoy consensus, so if we're rolling back to the last stable version we need to remove it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I added in language that effectuates the intended "campaign" but campaign seems to conflict "amorphous." I think it reads better as well. --DHeyward (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but -- excluding the last sentence -- I don't see what your changes improved. You didn't even really give a reason for them beyond 'tighter', which I don't think it was, and you used a really awkward-sounding 'were used to stage harassing activity' phrasing. So I've reverted everything but the last sentence for now. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeating my above statement! Please discuss before making any more changes to the lead; you know it's controversial, and the exact wording took a while to hammer out. I don't feel that eliminating the passive voice or swapping "of" for "against" actually made it read better. --Aquillion (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

nymag: UN, cyber, some GG

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/09/uns-cyberharassment-report-is-really-bad.html ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

latimes: cross, gamergate, diversity

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-the-download-tweney-lean-out-20150929-story.html ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

unicorn booty: RS? & Anthony Burch interview

https://unicornbooty.com/interview-borderlands-2-writer-anthony-burch-wants-more-sexes-in-gaming/

1. Is unicornbooty RS?
2. It's an interview, probably UNDUE, but interesting perhaps.
3. Interesting: "If we’re using “harassment” as a synonym for “GamerGate,” I’m happy to say it hasn’t affected me, nor anyone I’ve worked with in the slightest. The vast majority of developers I’ve worked for and with simply don’t know what the hell GamerGate even is. If they’ve heard of it, they have a general sense that it’s a gross, troll-y movement that’s not worth thinking about for more than a few seconds. I’ve seen far more instances of games being made more inclusive or diverse due to fan feedback than I’ve seen, I dunno, developers intentionally cutting characters of color because they’re worried about getting doxxed or something."

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

observer.com: Tweets Suggest Patreon Hack May Be GamerGate Related

http://observer.com/2015/10/tweets-suggest-patreon-hack-may-be-gamergate-related/

I'm not familiar with observer.com. RS status?

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Observer.com is the web presence of The New York Observer, which has, so far as I know, strong editorial policies and some well known writers and alumni. For me, it's a pretty easy call that it meets the RS standard--though I haven't checked the Wikipedia archives. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Having investigated a bit further, it seems to me like yet another promising lead, but once more a situation where we should wait to see if there is more media pick-up, so to speak. Thanks again. Dumuzid (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there is a follow up article: http://observer.com/2015/10/the-patreon-hack-14-gigabytes-of-trolling/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, rather hilariously that called BS on them posting the original story was Randi Harper. The follow up does offer some interesting points on GG's structure as a whole too, I think.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "misogynistic" from 'campaign' language re: Ms. Quinn

Bilby, I see your point, though for me, I think the sources offer at least some support for the wording as it existed. I think to entirely remove the gendered component is a disservice to the sources cited; would you perhaps accept "sexist" as a better descriptor? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that misogyny isn't the right term - I'm currently looking to see if we have a good source available to support it. I expect that we do, it is just that neither of the sources being used did, and to make that claim I think we need to remove it and then find a source, rather than leave it in there when it isn't supported fully. I've been through about 15 articles, and none are quite what I'm looking for, but I expect to find something. So at this stage I'd hold out for a bit until we know whether or not there is a reference to support it as it was written.

This is a problem I'm hitting a lot while checking sources - we seem to have a problem with how sources are being used, but there is normally support for the claim if you track down a more appropriate reference and remove those that don't help. I don't know how this came about, but my guess is that a lot of the wording has been modified and strengthened after sources were added, and accidentally went beyond them, without updates references to match. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Heron, Belford and Goker use the term ("Over the months of August and September in 2014, an independent game developer by the name of Zoe Quinn and her friends have found themselves the target of an equally misogynist backlash by a coordinated conspiracy.") There are probably lots of others (when I was searching the refs, the one I checked before that sort of did, too -- the Ars Technica bit on the next sentence says "The logs show a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism"), but that one is probably the best source for it. You should generally check the sentences around the one you're looking at before removing stuff or adding citation-needed tags; often what happens is that a sentence gets cut in two or shuffled around, and sources that cover both parts only end up on one of them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to use Heron et al when you beat me to it. :) Yes, that's a good source to use. Problem solved. - Bilby (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I really should learn to always check there first. Thanks to both of you. Dumuzid (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

removing refs

@Bilby: before removing a ref, please check if it belongs to a nearby sentence. The way editing happened, some sentence were split or spliced together in ways that didn't correct the refs. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored the ref and moved it to the right place. I may have a 1RR problem because of this. Suggestions? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with seeing it put it where you have placed it. I don't think does anything useful, but it does no harm. - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

1) I had to do two reverts. 2) I'm looking more closely at that ref, and I'm not convinced it's useful. But for the moment, I'm going to take the conservative path and add it where it was supposed to be. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

More thoughts: I think the DailyFish ref is better than the BI ref. I think the BI ref either got most of its content edited out, or that it was used as an extra reference when the edit warring was much worse - when more RS was needed to support an edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It won't be violating 1RR as long as the reverts are in the same consecutive stream of edits- that counts as one revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

David Wolonsky interview

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2015/10/09/journalist-gamergate-oral-history/73578460/ Q&A: Journalist chronicles 'GamerGate' as it unfolds] - possible source. I particularly like his succinct description of GamerGate, in particular my the bit about perceived harm to videogames which gets to the core of their concerns and avoids misusing the word "ethics". Artw (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A year out, hopefully there will be more of this kind of analysis. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead Sentence Proposal

Ever since I first visited this page, I found the first few sentences really muddled, and I left the article more confused about what Gamergate was than when I started. Today I read a neutral one-sentence summary that I feel really crystallizes both sides, and I'd like to propose (with slight re-wording so that it fits in an encyclopedia article) that the lead sentence be edited somewhat to reflect this description:

"Gamergate, an online backlash against progressive influence in gaming which cannot be described neutrally in one sentence. Its supporters say the whole thing was really about ethics in gaming journalism, but the movement gained widespread attention for a subset of Gamergate’s supporters, who conducted several troubling harassment campaigns against women in gaming and journalists."

I'd leave out the striked-through part as I don't feel that fits in a wikipedia article, although that portion could be used later in the article as part of an outline of how difficult it is to define "Gamergate." The whole quote came from this Washington Post article. I'd appreciate editors' thoughts on this. Rockypedia (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, that does not strike me as a good representation of either the content of the article or the bulk of the reliable sources. Thanks for the suggestion, however. Dumuzid (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I realize I didn't frame it the way I'd like to see it worked into the article. I would leave the 1st sentence in the current article as is. Here's what I'd propose as the second sentence:

"Supporters claim that Gamergate is about ethics in gaming journalism, but the movement gained widespread attention for a subset of Gamergate’s supporters, who conducted several troubling harassment campaigns against women in gaming and journalists, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian."

That's more in line with what the content of the article is, and provides a succinct summary of who the two major sides are. As I said, as someone who was unfamiliar with the controversy, the current content did not at all explain to me what Gamergate "was". If you're someone who's intimately familiar with the topic, I think maybe a step back to see how the article reads to the more unfamiliar masses might be appropriate. Rockypedia (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the current intro does an okay job of summing up the "sides," though it could of course be improved. To me, the question is what is notable about these events, and the reliable sources don't spend much time on the ethics claims. While what you propose might be a good start to "an introduction to #Gamergate," it still strikes me as not in line with the bulk of reliable sources insofar as it puts the emphasis in different places, and thus (to my mind) is not how Wikipedia should put it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable - I would definitely like to see the first two sentences improved, to clarify what Gamergate is about, for people that aren't necessarily knee-deep in the daily goings-on of the gamer world. I have to think that while the majority of people editing this topic appear to be intimately familiar with it, the majority of people visiting this page just to read about it aren't as well-versed. I consider myself a reasonably smart guy, and I was really confused by the first paragraph. Rockypedia (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the current introduction does a much better job at summarizing the article, and the reliable sources, than this proposal, which creates a false equivalence between something all sources agree on -- Gamergate’s campaign of misogynistic threats -- and the alleged claims of a small and anonymous faction that everything we know about Gamergate was in fact performed by a subset of Gamergate, and there's another Gamergate out there that is really about ethics and is really the real Gamergate. The Real Gamergate that's really about real ethics sounds real nice, but we can't write about that because almost no really reliable sources discuss it, and it has no notability at all. Meanwhile, the harassment has been discussed in plenty of real newspapers and magazines and continues to afflict real people.

As is my custom when a fresh editor arrives here eager to rebalance the lede, I'd like to remind people that, while Gamergate is at best tenuously termed a "movement", there is no question that it is a terrorist organization -- it is observably organized and its notably operations have been promulgation of highly visible threats to harm women in computing, clearly intended to deter other women from pursuing work in the field. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down - I'm hardly a "fresh editor", and I happen to agree completely with your point that Gamergate is a terrorist organization. The thing is, I didn't get to that understanding from this article, and certainly not from the lead. I had to go further and one of the articles that actually explained it to me clearly was that Washington Post article. Your point about the "false equivalence" is well taken and well made - I'm glad I came here first before trying to edit the lead on my own, because now I see how that would be a concern. All I'm trying to say is that if you really want to get the message across about what Gamergate really is, the current lead does a poor job of that - not necessarily because it doesn't contain all the info, but because seems to be written for people who already know what Gamergate is, not those looking for info. I'm hoping to help, and get help, improving that. Rockypedia (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Rocky, what do you think of this suggestion to make the first opening sentences less muddled: "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment was notably sexist, and included the doxing of its targets, threats of rape and death threats, such as a mass shooting threat in protest of a speech featuring Sarkeesian." PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rockypedia:: When I termed you "fresh" I meant, of course, that you were new to this page, not that I wasn’t aware of your long history of contributions. As you probably know, this question appears over and over through the archives, and is raised in some form or other at surprisingly-consistent intervals. The protracted conflicts on this page have, I agree, muddied the lede; the fiercely edit-warred insistence that certain editors know what Gamergate really involves, or that all the notable Gamergate actions derived not from Gamergate but from other people nefariously using the name, muddy it further. We have, at best, weak anonymous sources that claim Gamergate was concerned about ethics; these claims, moreover, make no sense because Gamergate’s actions have seldom concerned ethics. If we want to say, "Gamergate is a terrorist conspiracy", that would be clearer and consistent with the best sources.

Because Gamergate has no members, no manifesto, and no spokesman, we cannot know what Gamergate really is: we can only know what Gamergate does. I broadly concur with @PeterTheFourth:'s proposal, though I'm sorry to say that the harassment campaign continues. It’s also approaching time for us to seriously consider covering Gamergate’s well-documented efforts to subvert Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha, all good points. Referring back to PeterTheFourth's proposed first sentence - I think that's definitely an improvement. I also feel the attacker's attempts to subvert wikipedia should be documented, and at least alluded to in the lead. My biggest source of confusion was "where did the term Gamergate come from" - and I think including a line that talks about how Gamergate attackers claim that Gamergate was about ethics in game journalism would make sense - as long as it's also made clear, in the same sentence, that that's a spurious claim.

I do thank you all for treating this seriously, and for all the work that you've obviously done already. Rockypedia (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel that the description of these concerns in the second paragraph is insufficient, or that it would merely be better placed in the first paragraph of the lede? I'm not sure expansion is viable with the weighting of sources we have, but I'm fine with moving things around a bit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A thought: "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign starting in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. Harassment expanded to include journalists they perceived as covering them in an unfavourable and thus unethical light." PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a great first sentence. To lessen confusion about who the players are, I would have the second sentence state that the perpetrators claim that they're concerned about ethics in game journalism, but that these claims are without merit, and just a mask for what they're really doing - not those exact words, but that's what I feel would simplify the lead enough to give people a good idea of what's going on with Gamergate. I would write a second sentence, but it's become obvious to me that you are more qualified to do that. Rockypedia (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Final go-over, feel free to make your own suggestion (we're all monkeys on typewriters): "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. Harassment expanded to include game journalists that were perceived as covering the harassment in an unfavourable light, and was justified by the perpetrators claim that their targets had behaved in an unethical fashion. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment was notably sexist, and included the doxing of its targets, threats of rape and death threats, such as a mass shooting threat in protest of a speech featuring Sarkeesian." (Note: I haven't gone too much into how they believe their targets behaved unethically- I don't want to rehash the second paragraph too much.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely oppose this new suggested first paragraph. Firstly the controversy concerns a lot of things not just the harassment campaign. Harassment was however, the most notable aspect. Secondly harassment of game journalists has very little coverage in the actual main body of the article, only a sentence or two about Jen Frank. Brustopher (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand the objection around "include game journalists", but main GG "about ethics" fig-leaf was hung on that. Change "Harassment expanded to include game journalists that were perceived as covering the harassment in an unfavourable light" to something about attacking gaming journalism? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Goring a sacred cow here: Could we remove references to Quinn, Wu, and Sarkessian from lede? While they were the most visible early targets and figures, there were many more figures in involved. e.g. "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry and gaming indusry journalists that were perceived as covering the harassment in an unfavourable light. The campaign was justified by the perpetrators claim that their targets had behaved in an unethical fashion." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is not a good edit, but I hope you get the idea. Gotta run off. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have an issue with removing Sarkeesian and Wu from the lede. Given that the harassment campaign started with Gjoni getting other internet weirdos like him to attack Quinn, I'm not sure removing her name from the lede is a good idea. I'll think about it- other input is welcome. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

How about starting with "The gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign originating in 2014 that targeted several feminists working in the video game industry. The harassment initially targeted game developer Zoë Quinn, but expanded to include other game developers, cultural critics, and game journalists. The campaign of harassment [... same as above ...] in protest of a speech featuring Anita Sarkeesian, a critic of sexist attitudes conveyed in video games."

I'm unsure if my description of Anita Sarkeesian in the last sentence is accurate- would somebody come up with a better way of phrasing what she does? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This new version doesn't fix most of the issues raised above. Brustopher (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you believe it doesn't address your concerns, or other people's concerns? Feel free to elaborate on what you believe is not being addressed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the article itself makes very little mention of journalists being harassed. There's something about Jen Frank but I think that's it. Therefore it would be undue to include such a thing in the lede. Secondly, while the controversy does in part concern a harassment campaign, as the main body shows this is not the whole story. The harassment campaign is only the most notable aspect, which is why I prefer the previous wording. Brustopher (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The current version appears to provide more informative detail in about the same number of words, and while the current version is not perfectly phrased, this is not without infelicity. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"The gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign originating in 2014 that targeted several feminists game developers and cultural critics in the video game industry. Harassment expanded to include game journalists, perpetrators justified their harassment with claims of unethical journalism. The campaign of harassment was coordinated online by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment was notably sexist, and included the doxing of its targets, threats of rape, threats of mass shootings and death threats." Perhaps, too severe in the chopping, but some of the specifics are less lede worthy a year out. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm good with this lede paragraph proposal- it's a good compromise between a few concerns raised as I see it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Applying the brutal removal method to the existing lede: The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014. It concerns sexism and progressivism in video game culture. It is most notable for harassment against feminists in the video game industry. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, threats of mass shootings, and death threats. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Where it says 'most notable for harassment' replace with 'most notable for a campaign of harassment'. We could qualify the harassment as misogynistic, which it verifiably was, there or elsewhere. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

These seems better, but to my knowledge there was only one threat of a mass shooting not plural. I think we're getting somewhere. It's probably also helpful to think more carefully about what we mean by "Gamergate controversy" is it the initial controversy that got all those gamergaters outraged, the backlash against them or both? Brustopher (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We should be clear that Gamergate is both things, intertwined - even if one side's claims that Gamergate is about "ethics in journalism" are totally spurious, that claim (and the fact that it's spurious) needs to be early in the lead - that's the whole reason I proposed a change in the first place, because to people that aren't intimately familiar with Gamergate (which all of these editors here are, clearly), the lead does not clearly lay out what the two opposing sides are. And there are two opposing sides - just because one side are criminals/borderline terrorists, doesn't mean you shouldn't address their existence and their excuses for their behavior in the first sentence. It's just about informing clearly. Rockypedia (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The two sides presentation doesn't bear up well is the problem. There are people who use the hashtag (some with nasty actions and some without), and there are people who resist the nasty actions of some of the people who use the hashtag (with the additional confusion that some hashtag users also oppose the nasty actions). When you look through RS you find at least these three groups. The ethics thing being being mainly tied to the nasty actions as a fig-leaf. Sides is too simplistic. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with ForbiddenRocky here. While the "it's about ethics" claims certainly deserve to be part of the story, putting them in the lead and framing the article that way appears to me to be putting emphasis where it can't be found in the sources, and as such, not optimal. While I am certainly sympathetic to Rockypedia's desire to systematize the article and its narrative, it's not our job to make coherent what is incoherent in the sources. To present 'sides' here in any sort of thesis/antithesis way seems to me misguided. But then I am often misguided myself. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think ForbiddenRocky's proposal below is great. I would still like to see the next sentence, maybe starting a new paragraph, describe how the harrassers used "ethics in game journalism" as an excuse for their behavior, as well as a one-line summary of why those claims weren't based in fact. Both of those things are pretty well-documented, I think, and they're a major part of Gamergate. Ignoring the existence of those claims serves only to fuel those random IPs that claim there's some Wikipedia conspiracy working against them. This page is well-patrolled enough to ensure the documentation of those "ethics" claims don't go any farther than what we decide on here. Rockypedia (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

working edit (just proposed edits here?)

The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014. It concerns sexism and progressivism in video game culture. It is most notable for a campaign of misogynistic harassment against feminists in the video game industry. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, of mass shootings, and of murder. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)