Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

More mention of GG

Outrage Over ‘Call of Duty’ LGBTQ Pride Brings Us Full Circle to Gamergate

Almost a decade ago, video game culture helped give rise to the "anti-woke" movement that continues to plague us today

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/call-of-duty-outrage-lgbtq-pride-gamergate-1234771626/

Doesn't seem to add anything new, but continued mention. Maybe use as fresher RS? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Add to impact section?

Video Game Conventions Are Still Hotbeds Of Sexualized Abuse

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/video-game-conventions-still-hotbeds-164000370.html

It was a familiar refrain. It’s been nearly a decade since the video game industry was rocked by Gamergate, a protracted, organized, and relentless harassment campaign against female gamers waged, in part, by members of the alt-right. And despite endless denunciations of it across the industry, along with promises to do better, women who attend gaming events and conferences say what happened at GDC is hardly surprising. Sexism among developers and gamers is still prevalent in Discord chats and subreddits; despite all the tough talk from the gaming establishment, the industry–and gaming conventions in particular–remains hostile to women and femme-presenting people.

Impact? Or lack thereof? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Britannica as a RS for this article

In this case, it seems a bit circular/self-referential to use https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gamergate-campaign as a source in the Wikipedia entry, because it looks like a lot of paraphrasing of the Wikipedia entry over at Britannica.

You'll have to look for Britannica's entry, but I'm a little dubious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

https://compactmag.com as RS

While I don't find particular fault with what was written, I'm giving https://compactmag.com a bit of side-eye as an RS. It hasn't been around that long. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

RS, YESPOV, ATTRIBUTEPOV, DUE, compact source, conversation source

Rather than start an edit war, I would like to talk about this [1] edit a bit more. WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are met, but these two sources are not very good on as WP:RS, and in particular Compact is barely a year old.

And while I agree with to the relevance to some degree, I also do not think the additions completely rise to WP:DUE and start to border on WP:COATRACK

I think the removal was the better edit. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that the last thing the article needs is more opinions. We have too much of that already. If we want to discuss the long-term impact of Gamergate there's a ton of high-quality sources now, there's no reason why we would need to devote an entire paragraph to what someone wrote on their blog. Like, yes, sure, we can include it as attributed opinion, but why would we? It's not an opinion by someone particularly notable or relevant, and there's no indication that the opinion itself represents some major stream of thought on the subject. (As an aside, I do wish that we had more guidelines, or at least essays, on when to include opinion. Policy only says that we can, which is spectacularly unhelpful in situations like these, when dealing with topics for which massive realms of opinion exist.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree that this doesn't seem like a useful addition to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed them originally, but I'm not wedded to removing them. Mostly I just thought it was a bit much, that these weren't the greatest of sources and the writers weren't necessarily of any note. I also concur with the section notice that the quotes are a bit long in this section. But there's nothing wrong with covering GG in 2023, if it's still being covered in sources of note - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: any comment? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky Thank you for the ping and starting this section. Sorry I missed it originally. It seems clear that four editors I respect are in consensus that the content should be removed. I have no objections. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You must have miscounted, I can't possibly an editor worthy of respect! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section "Brianna Wu and other targets of harassment," it reads, "Shortly after the Gamergate hashtag was coined, video game developer Phil Fish had his personal information, including various accounts and passwords, hacked and publicly posted in retaliation for defending Quinn and attacking her detractors." That final "her" should be changed to "their" as Quinn's pronouns are they/them, which are already used elsewhere in the article to refer to them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done, good catch. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the Brianna Wu section, there is a confusing sentence: "The term "social justice warrior" emerged as the favored term of Gamergate proponents, resulting in its pejorative use becoming mainstream." I think it should be: "The term "social justice warrior" emerged as the favored term of Gamergate proponents to refer to their opponents, resulting in its pejorative use becoming mainstream." Cerulean Depths (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done CJ-Moki (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

From the "Legacy" section:

"Business Insider compared QAnon and the GameStop short squeeze to Gamergate by referring to all three as "populist uprisings"."

I genuinely, in good faith, don't see how the GameStop short squeeze is that similar to GamerGate. If there was widespread doxxing and harassment involved, but I don't recall that much. Especially since it's only from one source and, IIRC, a earlier edit that compared the Hogwarts Legacy boycott (which did have doxxing and harassment involved) to GamerGate got reverted. TuneyLoon (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That's something to ask Business Insider. But it sounds like they're just saying they're all "populist uprisings," and that's the extent of the comparison. They weren't bringing up the harassment angle. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Though, just because they say it doesn't mean we need to include it. The other parts of that section reflect major aspects of the topic which have significant, sustained coverage; this is just a one-off article making a passing comparison. Given the amount of coverage the topic as a whole has received I'm not sure it's due for inclusion unless there are other sources saying similar things. Like - the way it was positioned was weighing it equally to the connection to QAnon, which makes absolutely no sense given the vast difference in coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair argument. This likely counts as a "trivial mention" and can be discarded. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Split Legacy section?

I was looking at this article out of curiosity and because I just don't understand this situation at all and I saw how long the Legacy section was. I was wondering whether or not we should split it so there's a separate article for it (something like Legacy of Gamergate). What are your thoughts on the idea? Great Mercian (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about it immediately after posting it, I am worried something like Legacy of Gamergate might glorify it, which is slightly worrying. Great Mercian (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I also wonder if it really needs to be split—or if we could simply revamp the Legacy section, giving more prominence to recent sources with a more comprehensive POV? Just a thought. Woodroar (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, but only with the word choice; a split is a good idea. Imho, "legacy" is usually associated with positive feelings and attitudes, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the "positive aura" of a title like "Legacy of Gamergate" that irks you. If so, I sympathize, and I agree, because it irks me, too. But all you have to do is give it a neutral title, like Impact of Gamergate, and that positive aura disappears (for me at least), and it becomes neutral. I think that would be an ideal title, unless someone comes up with something better.

I think there is no question that the "Impact" topic is WP:Notable, and at 72kb of prose, this article is in WP:SIZESPLIT territory, so really the only question is whether it should have its own article or not, and whether there is consensus (and enough volunteer hands) to do it. So to be clear: I support a split to Impact of Gamergate. Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Three more words, from a thesaurus: after-effects, aftermath, and consequences. I think I like aftermath even better than impact; plus it's completely neutral. Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar: @Mathglot: shall we do it then? Great Mercian (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Great Mercian, I would say, not yet. Because of the extremely contentious nature of this topic, making this change now based on just a handful of editors might ruffle a lot of feathers. This page has 650 watchers, and probably more than that are interested in what happens here. I would advertise this proposal at a more central venue (a WikiProject, WP:VPR, etc.), and get buy-in from a larger number of editors. If there is a clear trend of support (which, imho, there will be), then I think we can move forward. But we are not quite there yet. Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, a split would need a lot support. Perhaps an RfC? Before that, I would suggest drafting something, even the outline of an article, along with the sources you would use. That would help show that you don't intend it to be a "look at how great Gamergate was" article. Woodroar (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, organizing it as an Rfc with a formal proposal to split off the Legacy section into a new article, with a few naming choices as options (and don't forget a "don't split" option), would also bring in more eyeballs. Mercian, do you want to take this on? If you haven't organized an Rfc before, I can help. Woodroar's idea of a draft is a good one; maybe we should hold off on the Rfc, and do a draft first. The title of a draft doesn't etch anything in stone, but how about, Draft:Aftermath of Gamergate or Draft:Impact of Gamergate? (Note that we don't need the parenthethical in the title, because there is no 'aftermath' for the ant.) Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC) P.S. regarding a title, this ngrams is kind of interesting. Mathglot (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've started Draft:Impact of Gamergate with a copy of the current section. For starters, I plan on only adding an article skeleton (refs section, maybe some See also, categories, etc.) and not making any changes to the content at all. I should be done with this shortly; pls stand by... Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Great Mercian and Woodroar: Draft:Impact of Gamergate is now available. Now that it is, if we're going to do an Rfc about a split, it should be done as quickly as possible imho, so that the existing #Legacy section doesn't start to drift away too much from the Draft. Do one of you want to take on creating the Rfc? As noted above, we should notify relevant WikiProjects, probably also WP:VPR, and any other centralized discussion that seems reasonable. Mathglot (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and created it below, as #Split proposal. The guideline is opposed to using an WP:Rfc for that purpose, and so I followed the regular WP:SPLIT procedures, and notified all the WikiProjects, so hopefully we'll get a good response with a clear consensus one way or another. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

PDF of Jeong's The Internet of Garbage is not a WP:COPYVIO

Re: @Sideswipe9th's revert of my edit.

The PDF link in question is not a copyright violation. When I first found it on Google, I thought it was too, but I soon after found a page from the publisher (The Verge) linking to the PDF in question:

The Internet of Garbage 1.5 available for free as a PDF...

"PDF" links to it. cv-revdel is unnecessary.

— Toast for Teddy (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw the RevDel request and restored the link. I came to the same conclusion, the publisher publishing their own e-book on their own servers is not a copyvio. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Huh, sorry for that. When searching for it all that came up for me was our article on the book, an Amazon listing to buy it, reviews of it, and social media commentary. I'll undo the request on your sandbox now too. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverted the request in your sandbox now too. Might I suggest adding a hidden comment after the citation template with the URL to the publisher page linked above, in case someone else runs into the same query sometime after this talk page section is archived? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Toast for Teddy (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal

 Courtesy link: § Split Legacy section?

I second Great Mercian's proposal above to spin off the § Legacy section into a separate article, title to be determined. The article is currently 71 kb of prose (236 kb raw) which is large enough. The content of the #Legacy section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page. You can view a copy of the #Legacy section split off into its own draft here. Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging TP participants @Woodroar and HandThatFeeds:, and all listed WikiProjects notified. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom-seconder. I chose the provisional title Draft:Impact of Gamergate based on this ngrams, but I'm open to any title. Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• I support this effort, as I think it's a helpful thing to go into detail on. I do think the "Social, cultural, and political impact" section can probably be incorporated into this new article as well. I'm not entirely sure how to feel about the timeline-like presentation, in particular because the section headers don't seem to correspond to anything in particular other than arbitrary timeperiods. Personally, I would try to section off impacts on separate fields instead, but I recognize that it all ties together. It's complicated, but the tail on Gamergate is long and will need an article like this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maplestrip, I completely agree, and have raised this at Draft talk:Impact of Gamergate#Section heading naming and organization. Your comments there would be welcome. Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I agree that the Legacy section is too long, I don't believe that splitting is the solution. I feel that too many of the sources used in the section aren't sufficiently removed from Gamergate to be useful to readers. (As a comparison, imagine writing an article or section on the impact/legacy of World War II and using sources from 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, etc. How can we expect the effects to be evident while it's still happening?) I also believe that we devote too much space to individual sources and rely on far too many quotations, to the point where WP:UNDUE and WP:COPYVIO are concerns. If we only used sources from, say, 2018 or 2019 and later, and rewrote the content thematically, we could probably get the section down to 3 paragraphs: one on continued harassment of women and journalists on social media, one on the rise of the alt-right, and one more general paragraph. I'd be open to changing the section name to "Impact", which feels more neutral than "Legacy". Woodroar (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would quickly note that it's been nine years since the start of Gamergate, and eight years since the "end." This would be more like making an article about the ongoing fallout of World War II in, say, 1948 or even 1954. I think the comparison is a bit silly, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Woodroar is right about this - the problem is the excessive (and in many cases redundant) quotations. The section could convey the same information with greater brevity, that should be the solution. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Rather than reducing the size of the current section, it should be greatly expanded, but WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns prevent that while it remains part of the current article. See #Discussion below. Once it is spun off, I agree that the Legacy section here can be significantly shortened per WP:SS. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  From what I can see in reading the sources, the quotes only tend to be the highlights of more detailed articles. There's a lot of detailed writeups on this subject that are currently summed up only with a quote or two, and I think these can probably be explored more in-depth. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Great Mercian (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - and agree with Woodroar. Time for judicious editing and summarising of content over spinning it off (I've been suggesting as such for most of the articles existence). We have a lot of quotes attributed to individuals, most of the quotes are intrinsically linked to the subject matter of the article, meaning if you were to move them it would require re-contextualising a lot of the content elsewhere. The idea that a section can just be hived off per the draft is not an appropriate solution. Koncorde (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The legacy section needs paring down and editing before splitting. Splitting is putting the cart before the horse. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  What good would paring it down actually do? I feel it would be a huge betrayal to pare down even a character of information. Great Mercian (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• This article has a fraught editorial *history*. This history led it to a editorial style having way too much quotation and not enough summary. The legacy section suffers from this, too. A general fix for the entire article is probably the thing to do first, rather than a split. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is long, but I don't think there's a way to split this topic without losing some valuable context. I agree with editors who say there are excessive amounts of quotations. It should be possible to summarize the same thing in fewer words, particularly the legacy section. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least for now. The article as a whole, including this section, has issues with blow-by-blow accounts of events and opinions that lacked WP:SUSTAINED significance and which are better covered with a more brief summary rather than a rambling list of everything that has ever mentioned Gamergate in any context. In particular there are WP:QUOTEFARM issues (which this page has had for a long time, and would only become worse if we tried to turn the quote-bloated legacy section into its own article.) We would be better off trimming things first and summarizing broad threads of coverage rather than relying on so many quotes. I don't think we'd need to split the article after that, but if it turns out that there's too much stuff that can't be trimmed, we can revisit the question. --Aquillion (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I agree with above that the section needs some serious cleanup before considering a split, especially its excessive reliance on long quotes. Some further comments: I really like the 'overview' given in the first few paragraphs but I am confused as to why the rest is broken into years rather than by topic. Second, from skimming many of these paragraphs in this section, a good chunk read more like retrospectives rather than an impact/legacy. Yeoutie (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Impact is a much bigger topic, and needs to be expanded not reduced

The impact or legacy of Gamergate is a much bigger topic than the events of Gamergate itself during the time it was going on. The view from only a few years later in 2024 makes clear that Gamergate has had a profound impact in numerous areas, which are only poorly covered in the current article, such as development of internet attack tactics, misinformation, online recruitment, rise of the alt-right, presidential campaign politics in the United States, ditto in Brazil and elsewhere, the January 7 Capitol Hill attack, mainstreaming of racist and misogynistic opinion in public forums and even by some political candidates, and much, much more (that's just off the top of my head).

These subtopics are all poorly covered in quantity and in quality in the #Legacy section, and hidden by the chronological sectioning already mentioned by some editors, which was an outgrowth of the rapid development of the article in its early days as Gamergate unfolded. A chronological organization no longer serves the article well, and would be best reorganized thematically, not chronologically. (I am not the first to point this out, and I agree with those editors who have already done so. In particular, Koncorde, you said that "the idea that a section can just be hived off per the draft is not an appropriate solution", but that was never the idea. Moving it to draft is only a first step, but you have to start somewhere, and having it there permits the thematic restructuring and expansion that keeping it local does not. So I actually agree with your comment.)

A comparison with World War II was made above, self-labeled as "silly", but although they are vastly different topics in their nature, as far as their impact, the comparison is not so silly. World War II had a profound, lasting, and global impact in numerous areas of human endeavor; exactly the same thing can be said about Gamergate. We need a separate article about the impact in order to be able to give a proper accounting of the latter; there is no way it is going to happen in the context of the current article. It needs to be reorganized thematically, and greatly expanded.

A thematic organization will make it clear what the huge number of secondary sources about the impact already do: that there is an enormous amount of material to cover in the topic of the impact of Gamergate. In fact, Gamergate has already had a lasting, profound, and global impact on social media, national and international politics, public opinion about journalism and representative democracy, mainstreaming of extremist opinion, presidential elections in numerous countries, and even the nature of public debate and truth itself in a world of post-truth politics, and that impact is likely only to grow.

To those arguing for reducing the number of quotations and reducing the size of the Legacy section in the current article, I think that approach is doomed, and it's only a matter of time before the Impact article is split out. Looking further on, I predict the Impact article will itself spawn a number of child articles on various subtopics of the overall impact; but let's not get ahead of ourselves. As for where we are right now in 2024, there is more than enough sourcing to support a standalone article on the Impact of Gamergate, and keeping it as a section in the current article unduly straitjackets its expansion per WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns. It should be split out to allow a proper treatment of the topic. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to second guess the outcome, but this has vague air of WP:SYNTH / OR about it as I'm honestly failing to see the supporting articles in my day to day experience. If there is sufficient sourced information to justify an "Impact of Gamergate" / "Legacy of Gamergate" article then it will stand alone, similar to Alt-right pipeline and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. I would suggest writing in draft this proposed article / expanding to demonstrate this. In contrast this article has been in dire need of editorial oversight for way too long. Koncorde (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Huh? The Draft already has 55 references, and that's before beginning the restructuring and expansion process. If we add in section § Social, cultural, and political impact as has been suggested above, then it would have 82 more. That said, I agree that it should be expanded, but it's a process, and there's no deadline. The bottom line is notability, and I believe the topic is without question notable, or do you disagree? Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to sources that support some grand "legacy of" which smacks a little underwhelmingly supported by current sources. Lots of sources, in and of itsef, does not mean those sources support an article on its own or will retain relevance in review. As a basic fork of this content it supports what it supports here but is a bit of a laundry list of newsy articles that happen to mention Gamergate or ascribe something to it. Which is fine for here, if unnecessary. So my point is if there are sources that support its expansion into a wider topic then I have not seen them and if it's repurposing what already exists then that feels SYNTH / OR.

At present I think significant quantity of the article is unnecessary to summarise what Gamergate was and what came out of it. Therefore the argument of a content fork based on size of article may be unnecessary, and the argument for notability of specifically a legacy of Gamergate I haven't yet seen. So by all means create the draft of the article, and it's probably better to do so from a blank slate explicitly with articles that support the premise rather than cobbled together over a decade here. Koncorde (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"mainstreaming of racist and misogynistic opinion in public forums" I was under the impression than misogyny has been mainstream throughout the 20th century and has seen little to no decline in the 21st century. Slut-shaming is still ongoing. Dimadick (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sweet Baby Inc - Gamergate 2

Is it notable to mention the recent events surrounding Sweet Baby Inc that is being described as Gamergate 2. Below is a possible addition for the article. It can be cleaned up to be more neutral.

In March 2024, a harassment campaign led by previous Gamergate leaders (Redacted) and (Redacted) surfaced on Twitter and nicknamed as Gamergate 2. It started as analysts researched into why several high profile AAA video games were rejected by their fan bases. The common thread that manifested is Sweet Baby Inc - who is the consultant responsible the narratives straying too far from each game's corresponding mythos and established characters. There was spontaneous injections of political ideology that wildly stood out in every failed game that broke each fandom's immersion of their corresponding canon in favor of political pandering causing each game to be massively rejected. When a Steam curator created a list of Sweet Baby Inc games, (Redacted) and (Redacted) of Sweet Baby Inc initiated a harassment campaign to have followers falsely report the curator as breaking the Steam code of conduct. The harassment campaign backfired causing (Redacted), (Redacted), and Sweet Baby Inc to scrub their social media presence. The backfired harassment campaign caused a flurry of YouTube videos, memes, and new articles spreading more awareness of Sweet Baby Inc's involvement of injecting unnecessary political wokeness in video games causing games to fail and eventually causing studio layoffs and in some cases whole companies and franchises shutting down for good. Pusher (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you could annotate your proposed section with citations to reliable sources. Until then, it does not seem to me either to be due or verifiable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like unverifiable nonsense, especially injecting unnecessary political wokeness. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This entire article is complete nonsense. I find it farcically hilarious that Encyclopedia Dramatica has a less biased take on the incident in question, than Wikipedia. MutedL (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're listening to ED, you're not interested in unbiased opinion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Says who, some nobody editor on wikipedia? MutedL (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Two nobody editors, at least. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I'll never be butthurt enough to consider it a personal attack. MutedL (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh hey, Kotaku published an article summarizing events. And unsuprisingly, it does not support your viewpoint. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

TheGamer have also put out an article, and it also doesn't support the narrative proposed above. Nor does Dot Esports, though it does mention an unnamed employee of the company asking their followers to report the list and its creator for breaching the Steam code of conduct. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well if that is the case then I abandon the proposed the edit. I can't go against Kotaku. They were part of the mass media that gave me my "15 minutes of fame" in the summer of 2022. :) Pusher (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, except this is all irrelevant since before the CEO has gone on record saying exactly the opposite of those agitprop articles. MutedL (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What? Seriously, this statement is incoherent, I cannot understand what you're saying.

Except the bit where you're accusing these articles of being politically-motivated propaganda, which... yeah, not a good argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, you only have 64 edits total. Note the section below, you should not be commenting on this article per WP:CTOP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I could care less what you think I should or shouldn't be commenting on. MutedL (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

While the article is 30/500 restricted, it's not WP:ARBECR. Non-extended-confirmed editors can make contributions to this talk page, same as any others, and subject to the usual rules about talk page conduct in a contentious topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Not quite. While you're correct about the restriction being 30/500 and not technically ARBECR, it is a difference without distinction here as they are functionally the same thing. Extended-confirmed is granted automatically once an account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits in the first place. So by definition, there are very few if any scenarios in which a non-EC editor is allowed to be making contributions to this talk page, as it is a restriction under the CT policy itself, not ARBECR, that applies to "edits and pages in all namespaces" (including Talk pages) per footnote "b". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits to this talk page fall under CT, but there's no active restriction on this talk page. If you're uninvolved, you could decide this talk page needs some restriction. Until something like that happens, less experienced editors are allowed to participate—but not to do so disruptive let, obviously. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The template at the top of the page is super unclear about that, juxtaposing standard restrictions, the general contentious topic designation, and the "Furthermore..." additional restrictions within the span of three lines within a single template, while not clearly indicating who/what the source was for each, or clearly differentiating the scopes of each. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Much of the contentious topics situation is unceasingly opaque, so I empathize. The template in question is Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice, in case you'd like to look into tweaking it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually ARBECR is functionally different to 30/500. Per the text of ARBECR the only action that non-extended-confirmed editors are allowed to make on articles subject to it are non-disruptive edit requests. They are not allowed to participate further than that in talk page discussions. 30/500 has no corresponding prohibition on non-extended-confirmed editors contributing to article talk pages. As a result, ARBECR is a much stricter restriction on non-extended-confirmed editors.

Practically speaking for this article, while editors like MutedL are not allowed to edit the article, they are still fully allowed to participate in any talk page discussions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Motives are closer to goals than ideas

The infobox lists misogyny, anti-feminism and anti-progressivism as motives. These words probably describe the thinking of the Gamergaters but what they wanted to achieve is more appropriate here. It would be probably better if it was phrased along the lines of "Suppression of feminism and progressivism in video games". Everybody agrees on the harassment element which is obviously a means that goes a long way towards a goal of suppression. From the "Purposes and Goals" section:

Several writers who attempted to understand Gamergate's motivations concluded that, rather than relating to purported issues with gaming journalism ethics, Gamergate represented an effort to suppress opposing views.

Nxavar (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: Contentious Topic editing restrictions apply to this talk page as well.

Editors should take note of the warning at the top of this talk page indicating this is a contentious topic (CT) under active arbitration remedies, to which editing restrictions apply. The contentious topics procedure applies to all edits and pages across all namespaces, broadly related to a topic, which includes article talk pages. Specifically, editors here should be aware of the requirement that "You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days". Edits in violation of the CT standard restrictions may be reverted, and any single uninvolved administrator is authorized under the CT procedures to impose editor restrictions including sitewide and partial blocks, topic bans and page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic), interaction bans, revert restrictions; as well as page restrictions including page protection, revert restrictions, and others. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester:, it appears the the talk page is not set up 500/30? Could you (or some other admin do that)? So that underqualified editors can't get into trouble by editing? i suppose some admin should clean up all the outdated admin stuff WRT gamergate - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, this particular talk page seems to have cooled down a bit, so I'll leave it to some other admin to put that restriction on if they feel they need to. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually there seem to be several cases this month of very new editors with some knowledge of Wikipedia policy either starting new topics or being active in debates on this page - there was another yesterday, and another user with few edits supported the topic-starter in the discussion. If it’s possible to just restrict access that seems like a good idea to me. Lijil (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Purpose and goals summary

I just rewrote the lead slightly to better explain the origin of conspiracy theories about Zoë Quinn. There's a lot in the article about how "ethics in games journalism" was always a smokescreen to cover up the misogynistic abuse of Quinn and others. Seems like the lead should mention this as well. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it should be if it’s not already. GamerGate is well established to be mostly or entirely a harassment campaign. Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Just added "Several commentators in the mass media dismissed the ethics complaints as a deliberate cover for the ongoing harassment of Quinn and other women". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

infobox lists misogyny, anti-feminism and anti-progressivism as motives while the only serious study I have been able to find about Gamersgate supporters seem to indicate the opposite.

https://christopherjferguson.com/GamerGate.pdf

Comparisons Between GamerGate and the U.S. Population on Social Values: According to the study, gamersgate population support action against Global warming Affirmative action, Marijuana legalization, Gay marriage, Abortion and Universal healthcare above the U.S. population mean

"Ultimately it appears that the common narrative associating GamerGate with right-wing, regressive White men (Braithwaite, 2016; Horgan, 2019; Romano, 2018) is not supportable, given the current data. Indeed, GamerGate supporters appear to be more left-wing than the general public and also diverse in terms of race, gender, and other demographic variables than is often assumed"

Quijote3000 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You will find extensive citations supporting those descriptors in the body of the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• In general, primary studies (especially one like this, that is just a single poll of people's self-described politics) are not great sources. The article does contain much higher-quality sources, eg. - these are in agreement that misogyny, anti-feminism and anti-progressivism were the primary motives. The paper you present acknowledges itself that the conclusion it draws from its single poll is WP:FRINGE (even in the quote you presented, cites three others that it seeks to debunk, but only has a single poll of self-described opinions to do so.) If the conclusions they drew from their poll of how people involved in the topic described their own politics were borne out, you'd expect them to be confirmed by other studies, and they haven't been. Ultimately the fact that it's a poll of self-described politics means that it's just about how Gamergate supporters wished to be seen; and we already cover, in the article, the fact that Gamergate supporters made substantial efforts to influence the way they were perceived. But those efforts were (as the massive list of citations above shows) ultimately unsuccessful at convincing people that the sort of responses they gave to eg. the poll in question were actually representative. That sort of thing is why we rely on secondary coverage rather than initial polls - it's not unusual for an author to draw a sweeping conclusion from a poll that isn't borne out later. --Aquillion (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW the paper is also only cited 26 times, with a large number of those cites being to unrelated portions of the paper and not the primary claim about the identities of gamergaters. The paper is also self-contradictory, given that it's single poll actually supports the conclusion quite dramatically that GamerGate is white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender; the paper's authors appear to be only quibbling over the political alignment, not the other demographics. Seems quite fringe to me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hmmm, if gamergate supporters claim that the movement is not about that, shouldn't the article reflect that?, if all the "high quality sources" seem to describe the opposite of what the movement supporters are claiming they support, then maybe those sources are not reliable in the first place.

  ...at least as a rule of thumb I think people should have the right to define themselves rather than just being labeled by their counterparts (I don't claim information from the opposing view should be removed, but I think any movement should be described first by what the supporters claim they want and in second place the criticism rather than be defined by the criticism).

  I quote from reliable sources guideline:

  "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

  So if there are really no reliable sources representing the point of view of the protesters. Maybe we should remove the article. Lobishomen (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  No. We go with what the reliable sources say, not self-descriptions. If we went by the standard you propose, every corporation would be full of righteous people working to better the world through commerce, and Stormfront would be 'a community of racial realists'. NPOV does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE, we don't give equal validity to self-serving claims. MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm, if gamergate supporters claim that the movement is not about that, shouldn't the article reflect that?

  WP:MANDY applies. Of course they're going to claim it's not a harassment campaign, because harassment is bad & they don't want people to think they're bad. But reliable sources agree that it is a harassment campaign. So there's no point in putting up any particular GGer's claim that it's not. There is no right to "define" yourself here, because most people are going to use the most self-serving description they can think of, which is why we prefer what secondary sources say.

  Twisting that around to say the reliable sources are in the wrong is just not going to fly here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Reliable" means independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not the ones that endorse a particular point of view. Next you'll be saying Church of Satan should be deleted because it doesn't uncritically accept The Satanic Bible as the truth. I second the appeal to WP:MANDY here; Gamergaters have a documented history of trying to manipulate public perception via the Fine Young Capitalists, NotYourShield, etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, self-ascriptions generally can't be relied upon because humans are almost universally self-serving. We should always go by what the reliable sources state. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Category:Internet vigilantism

It's a bit weird for this category to be included given that the word "Vigilantism" isn't mentioned anywhere in the article at any point. Anyone know the specific reason for the inclusion? Trade (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There are definitely sources available on the link, judging by a quick ["gamergate" + "vigilantism"] search. Unless someone wants to do some work on collecting and summarizing them, I'd support removing the category per WP:CATV's

Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)