Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Potential source material for inclusion

I don't want to extensively edit this article only for it to be reverted. And out of some caution, I'm going to mention the below link: (Redacted)

It extensively talks about the affidavit by Zoe Quinn. I do not feel certain in my ability to include this in this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foia req (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Medium is not a reliable source. Redacted link due to BLP concerns. Woodroar (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this is a talk page. Furthermore, how are reliable sources being defined? I wish to contribute to this article, but I do not know how. Foia req (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

it is the talk page to discuss how to improve the article. Reliable sources are defined as sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and editorial oversight. And note that claims about living people require the highest level of reputation-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor, on a talk page, offering a link they think might be helpful, even if the link contains BLP violations and/or the link may be not be a WP reliable source, per BLPTALK. Yes, the link offered likely can never be used, but offering a possible source is a suggestion for improving the article, even if the link is determined to be unusable after review. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually a blanket declaration of "There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor, on a talk page, offering a link they think might be helpful, even if the link contains BLP violations and/or the link may be not be a WP reliable source, " is false as has been proven by editors being banned/blocked for placing inappropriate links in violation of BLP on this very page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And this point has been brough up at WP:BLP/N [1] and at Arbcom [2] and both agree that BLPTALK does not prevent the good faith inclusion of external links with possible BLP violations on talk pages under BLPTALK. Doing in a non-good faith manner ("We must incriminate this person, here are several links that we must include") is actionable, but this is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We agree that the initial posting by Foia req is probably not actively disruptive in the manner that would result in even a discussion of blocking or banning. However, I will stand by my statement that your blanket assertion that it is always OK to put links on talk pages is 1) factually wrong AND also given the history of this topic 2) a VERY BAD impression to give to a new editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We assume good faith, and per the links I give, we cannot start with the impression that it is wrong without assuming bad faith. Now, yes, we should be advising new editors via this talk page FAQ that the nature of this page requires higher-than-normal RSes, and that certain sites will never be considered RSes for this topic at the present time so there's no need to discuss links. But the attitude that you suggest, even on a page like this, is unhealthy to an open wiki that encourages discussion and good faith working. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom is, I think, correct. Talk pages are not to be used to spread slander, gossip, and rumor that has little chance to impact article space. It’s one thing to link to an inadequate source for an uncontentious fact like a birthdate in order to seek help finding better sourcing, but quite another to link to other material offsite which is both contentious and unusable. Wikipedia talk pages are not an open-fire zone where anything goes, and attempts to use them to punish targets should be met with prompt sanctions. New (and “new”) editors should exercise caution when linking to material that might be contentious and/or defamatory if not clearly supported by policy. (I have no idea what the content of the redacted link in this case might have been.) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It is all about intent of the link addition by the editor adding it, not the content. If an editor who clearly had a chip on their shoulder and wants to make sure to spread claims about a living person posted a number of links that were all BLP violations left and right, that's actionable. Here, because we have a newer editor that we can't judge motivation (per AFG), who feels that the article linked (which wasn't one massive BLP but did include BLP-related claims that would need careful handling) should be included or discussed for inclusion to discuss the nature of one of the person's involved, that's one that we simply go "no, it's not an RS, it's got BLP issues, we aren't going to include it" , but we should not be questioning the motives of the editor based on that single post. I am totally in agreement that all editors should use caution, review past discussion, and our talk page FAQ, so that the number of these links are minimized, but that's the extent that the recently clarifications of BLPTALK go towards, without knowing more about the motiviations of the editor. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I've appended a part on the FAQ about BLP and sourcing and reviewing the archives before suggesting a new source. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to confirm that we're both on the same page, I trust you agree that even a new user with the best of intentions would be wrong to link to defamatory material in an unreliable source, and that another editor should promptly redact the link. We might then discuss whether the source was in fact unreliable, or discuss some other link; if no reliable source can be found, though, there's not much to discuss unless the fact is uncontentious. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If the link is either to an article that immediately drops a BLP bombshell and is awash in it, or to a site that we have "blacklisted" due to the number of BLP vios on the site irregardless, then redaction is fine, with a comment to indicate why. On the otherhand, lets say an editor links to an article at Breitbart that out of 100 sentences has one small remark that could be taken as BLP, but the editor's reason to include is other points that have zero BLP issues. That should not be redacted though discussed and explained why we'd probably not include it. The point on BLPTALK is that including links to material that contains BLP violations is not necessarily wrong or needs to be dealt with in the same manner BLP on mainspace must be dealt with, but there still can be levels of improper link inclusion if the links are grossly violating or the intent is not in line with BLP. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Forget it, I'm not contributing to this article, if I can't meet the standards for a talk page, there's no way I can meet the standards for main article. Foia req (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I do not think the link I posted was defamatory, however I have not found a more well known source talking about the affidavit. Foia req (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Weaponize v. Ridicule

I reverted most of the change by @Lawrencekhoo: because 1) weaponize is what Chu uses, and 2) because weaponizing white male guilt is very different than ridiculing it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Full quote from source is "Gamergate is fully aware of the power of SWPL snark to skewer, deflect and demoralize allies joining social movements. They’ve fully weaponized it, with the #NotYourShield hashtag, whose purpose is to parade around the diversity of voices in Gamergate while accusing “anti-Gamergate” of being homogeneous privileged white guys." Using weaponized instead of ridiculing makes sense to me. — Strongjam (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest including a partial quote since "weaponize" is a rather contentious term (completely fine in the context of a quote, however). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at the article more closely and then the entry, and I'm having a problemwith including male with white guilt. I'm going to add quotes and remove male. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky, I changed that sentence because I couldn't understand what it meant – how do you 'weaponize white guilt' so as to stop people from doing what 'white guilt' would cause them to do. So, I went to read Chu's column to see what he was saying, and he's essentially saying that making fun of white guilt makes people less likely to do what white guilt would otherwise cause them to do. I think the sentence needs to be edited to explain this, otherwise it doesn't make sense. LK (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you still missed Chu's point. Chu is pointing out that "white guilt"/SWPL is fraught with problems. And those problems can be leveraged to silence allies - and the creation of silence harms less powerful/more marginalized people. The creation of the silence is the attack - leveraging the problems is the weapon. Ridicule is one of the things used as leverage. I dunno if the GGC entry is has the scope to explain all that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There's probably no need to explain the whole thing, but what is here should at least make sense to the casual reader. I suggest editing it to something that makes sense. LK (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUM and WP:BLP concerns. Our opinion of Arthur Chu is irrelevant; the opinion of the editors of major web magazines that have published his essays is what matters.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please explain why we have Arthur Chu's opinion at all in an already bloated article. As far as I can tell from his bio, he is a game show contestant. He doesn't appear to be a social scientist or having any expertise that would lend weight to his opinion over anyone else. WP is not a indiscriminant collection of information. How is Chu notable for this topic? --DHeyward (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) It appears that he’s published seven substantial essays on technoculture and games in Salon: [3]. That’s a considerable body of work, comparing favorably to a number of academics in the field. Also several essays for the Daily Beast and for Huffington Post. Compares very favorably, for example, to Allum Bokhari, whom we cite, I think the problem may lie with his wikipedia bio. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Skimming through the potentially sourceable articles (salon) only four seem to comment on "technoculture" ([4] [5] [6] [7]) and all four comment on Gamergate. I think DHeyward's asking "what makes him qualified to comment on Gamergate?" The response "because he's commented on Gamergate" begs the question. There's an open thread discussing the reduction of a quote from Alex Macris, founder of The Escapist, an online games magazine. If length and abundance of quotes are issues to address (and I believe they are) I'd think Macris is significantly more relevant to a controversy involving games and games journalism. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) The articles that are not specifically technoculture are about the intersection of race and culture, which is the #notyourshield gimmick in spades. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) That's a fair point. If we keep the Chu quote I'd rearrange them - as it is we have Quinn (anti) then 4chan (pro) then Chu (anti) - I think anti, anti, pro (or the reverse) would be better. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I'm still not convinced he's notable enough to cite as an authority on "white male guilt" or #notyourshield. Nothing he's done has been peer reviewed and he isn't reporting on peer reviewed stuff and self-identifies as a liberal commentator/blogger leveraging his game show fame - he's passionate but passion isn't a substitute for demonstrated competence. I think we've identified exactly one harasser by name/gender/race and he has mental health issues. It seems a little ridiculous quoting a lay persons opinion about a faceless gaggle of harassers or the diverse set of #notyourshield hashtag users are really targeting "white men" (are we really quoting someone that appears to be saying privileged white men are #NotYourShield victims?). It's a bit much to make the leap Chu did when he described the targets of #NotYourShield were "privileged white men" when our own paragraph starts off, quite correctly, saying it was directed at Quinn and Sarkheesian. Fundamentally, #NotYourShield was an extension of the Ethics vs. Misogyny discussion and the point being made was gender wasn't a shield against the criticism being put forward by the GG crowd. The reanalysis that it was really victimizing privileged white men by Chu contradicts what has been said since the beginning. I find it hard to generally add privileged white men to the list of victims of gamergate without some more sources that speak more authoritatively about it. --DHeyward (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC) You might not be convinced that he’s notable enough to cite as an authority, but the editor of Salon is. So are the editors at Daily Beast and Huffington Post. We’re an encyclopedia; we follow the sources. For the rest, your analysis might be interesting, and perhaps Salon will publish it! But we can’t because it’s original research. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) RSs are evaluated in context: publisher, creator and content all affect reliability, standard wiki policy. DHeyward's criticisms of creator and content are very much relevant to what we do as an encyclopedia. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) We can quote Chu's own nonsense Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it. Really? These privileged white males are the intended victims of #NotYourShield GamerGate? Does this pass the laugh test? Gamergaters "weaponized" #NotYourShield by taking on the perennially lambasted "privileged white male?" This sounds like MRA garbage - where does that viewpoint fit into the article about misogyny or even the #NotYourShield section that highlights the targets being Quinn and Sarkheesian? Should we rewrite it and claim, like Chu, that #NotYourShield was weaponized to attack privileged white males? No, this gameshow trivia celebrity is like quoting highschool-dropout-turned-Hollywood stars that testify before Congress on matters of science. This source is not significant enough to include and if we do include him, half his quotes from his articles contradict real reliable sources and spew nonsensical categories of victimhood. Giving a celebrity space to write a column doesn't make them reliable sources. Might as well use twitter. --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) And no, those editors don't consider him an authority on anything (except maybe gameshows). They gave voice to a minor celebrity in the form of space for a personal opinion column, not a gamergate or feminist content expert. No one cites his opinion. Well, except here. --DHeyward (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Ridicule is not the best tool to use when arguing for whether or not a source should be cited. Regardless of whether or not you personally think who our sources include is worthy of mockery, they're reliable sources with a history of good, accurate content. We shouldn't shy away from citing them because of this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Oh please. What history of good, accurate content does Chu have? He's a gameshow contestant that leveraged 15 minutes of fame into an opinion column that is only good for discussing what Chu thinks, not objective facts. He's not a journalist or content expert, but rather a self-described left-wing blogger. His "analysis" contradicts the section and is only added, it seems, because "weaponized" is a militaristic pull quote. Without a "privileged white men are the real victims of #NotYourshield" section, though, we are not accurately describing his position of who it was "weaponized" against. Such is the problem with taking bloggers as reliable sources. It may be his opinion that privileged white males were gamergate victims but that's hardly a reliable or widely held view. In fact, I'd venture to say that particular view is even less widely held than the "but ethics" view. It's a fringe view and there is no reason to publish Chu's fringe view at all. Where his views are mainstream, they are adequately covered by other sources. When they aren't mainstream, they veer off into fringe. Are you seriously arguing that we need the "privileged white men are victims of GamerGate" narrative held only by him? Hint: the mainstream view is that NotYourShield was an attempt to isolate criticism of Quinn and Sarkheesian from criticism of women and transgender people so that GamerGate wouldn't be labeled misogynistic and/or transphobic. That's clear from all the other reliable sources. None of them makes the Chu argument that privileged white males were even targeted, let alone victims. The two most widely known anti-GG people people at the time of NotYourShield were Quinn and Sarkheesian but the quote to justify "weaponizing" that "made sense" above is that the GG crowd was portraying anti-GG as privileged white men. That's about as far from from reality as one can get. He's not a notable source and he lacks the credentials to be a reliable source for anything other than his opinion. --DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Arthur Chu isn't the reliable source we're citing. Salon is (who Arthur Chu is writing for.) Salon believe that Chu is a suitable writer for the topic, and I'm willing to believe them, given their history of good, accurate content. If you believe that we cannot use Salon as a reliable source, you'd best bring it to WP:RSN. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Chu is a commentator giving an opinion. He's not an assignment journalist and he's only giving his opinion. Salon isn't endorsing his opinion, they give him space to express it. But Chu's value as a reliable source in Wikipedia is whether his opinion is notable (there are thousands of commentary in all sorts of reliable sources but we typically choose notable experts, not just a random "letter to the editor" type opinion. The fact that it's in Salon satisfies the published requirement of reliable source. Note that simply being in Salon opinion piece doesn't make a viewpoint notable or reliable otherwise we could cite all the commentary made by readers that gets hosted at these sites. Salon doesn't vouch for opinions. Even if you still think he's an RS, we are SYNTHing his "weaponized" usage in a way that contradicts his usage. we would have to add his "privileged white men are victims of GamerGate" to put his view in context since that is what he is saying. I think his view is rather fringe and so we shouldn't add "privileged white men are victims of GamerGate" into the section that says Quinn and Sarkheesian are victims of GamerGate. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) This is Arthur Chu. Is he a reliable source about anything but Arthur Chu, other than gameshows? A resounding 'No.' Maybe a fun person to read but ultimately not an authority. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Who else do we remove on charge of 'not being an authority'? Nathaniel Givens? Erik Kain? Regardless of whether or not you like his 'opinion', he's a noteworthy, representative figure who's writing for a very reliable source. We do not remove cited articles because individual editors do not like the person who wrote them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Never heard of any of those guys or Chu ntil here so it's not about 'like.' His viewpoint that priviliged white men are the victims of NotYourShield is fringe. He's not involved in Gamergate except as an irregular commentator. His claim to having a notable opinion comes down to leveraging his gameshow appearance. --15:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) This section has veered into WP:BLP territory. It is not our place to decide who is an authority and who is not. That is the task of the editors of newspapers, magazines, journals, and book publishers. It is not our place to discuss Arthur Chu. It is not our place to deride his abilities or to minimize his publications or to say his viewpoint is fringe: since it's appeared frequently in one of the Web’s largest and most respected publications, it's unlikely that the opinion expressed above (without signature) is pertinent. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to reopnen the above (I do think it's fine to include Chu), but to comment on Mark's reason: "It is not our place to decide who is an authority and who is not." That is exactly what we as a tertiary source are supposed to do, to determine what sources are the best to summarize a topic and include those, that's what WP:RS is all about figuring out. We do use how a person is reused in other sources already deemed reliable as part of our decision-making process to determine if someone is an authority, but we as WP editors can take other steps as well (And in fact this already has been done before on this past to remove Christian Hoff Sommers' opinion despite being sourced in RSes, as one example). And to that end, we might have to critically review an author's intentions and role (staying away from direct BLP issues) to figure that out. This happens all the time on WP, and is not a bad thing. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If I recall, Sommers was removed as she never actually addressed the topic of this article, speaking instead in obliques- WP:OR on our part to tie her statements to the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added what Chu's point is and how it contradicts the rest of the section. His viewpoint that it was white male journalists and privileged white males that took risks flies directly in the face of misogynistic attacks that were launched at Quinn and Sarkheesian. Chu's view of race as a wedge issue or that white males were victimized by NotYourShield is unsupported by any other references. If anything, it's the exact opposite as white, male defenders of Sarkheesian, Quinn, Wu et al, didn't flee their homes. --DHeyward (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've replied below, but you mis-quoted Chu. He did not say white journalist took risks. — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Strongjam. See also the new ThinkProgress article which quotes Wikipedian Sarah Stierch “It’s interesting how a male feminist had to write a blog about it before anybody realized that there are these problems on Wikipedia.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Cinema Blend

Hey. To my knowledge, Cinema Blend was removed as a source a month(?) or so ago because they can't be used to reliably source statements about things other than itself- A specific quotation from the editor who removed it last time: "they describe themselves in their FAQ as "primarily an opinion site" and are therefore not usable as a citation for statements of fact". This still holds true, so I'm removing it again and cutting down on what it was used to insert into the article (per WP:UNDUE), and rewording some of it to better represent the articles cited (most relevantly, the Destructoid one, which is not about 'updating policies in light of gamergate' as much as it is condemning harassment and reminding readers of the already in place policies.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks good, except I think the last sentence was okay to keep, as it is in the Escapist source, unless you think it's too tangential? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I shortened it a bit by rephrasing an earlier sentence as "The Escapist and parent company Defy Media updated their ethics policies". Is this suitable, or should we have it in its own sentence? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That works for me. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I like your rephrasing but I think we lost something by shortening the Macris quote. His previous quote had two parts: (1) why disclosure is important (2) how we intend to pursue it. Shortening the quote removed the "why" which is relevant. I've restored it. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The entire paragraph is about avoiding "perceived conflicts of interest". Do we need an extra sentence about the rationale behind disclosure? And beyond that, the (now) first quoted sentence references "that obligation", which is inferred but not explained, and almost requires that we restore yet more of the quotation. I say cut it back. Woodroar (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly why it's relevant; the entire paragraph is about avoiding conflict of interest but we say nothing about why it's important to avoid. If anything the first sentence in his quote is more useful than the second, which could be summarized more succinctly. I agree that "that obligation" isn't ideal, maybe there's a good solution. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In cases such as this, it might be wise to add context in square brackets i.e. "with that obligation [to be honest to our readers]." I'm not really in favour of the longer quote, however- not sure it adds that much information. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Bracketed text (or something similar) works. Good. Is your objection that you don't think the sentence in question adds the "why" or that you don't think adding the "why" is important? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think the 'why' is that important- the section is about responses to Gamergate from the games industry (and, I suppose, attached media outlets.) The 'why' is understood to be a reaction to the actions from those who associate themselves with Gamergate. If the 'why' isn't Gamergate, it... doesn't pertain so much to the article? Not sure if I'm explaining well. It's not a strong objection in any case, I'm just against needless bloat (especially with all these quotes.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Tim Schaefer mocks #NotYourShield

Consensus (!) that this discussion should wait to see whether new developments arise in the coming days
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm sorry for this, but... Independant's news about the joke. I'm giving a warning here, this'll be attempted to be added for better or worse but both sides. I'm pro-GamerGate as such I'll not write anything in the article but I'll be still searching for any controversy related to GamerGate.TheRealVordox (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Umm.... I'm not sure what you're saying here. It sounds to me like a developer made a joke about #NotYourShield. I'm not convinced that #NotYourShield needs more coverage here; it was a failed PR initiative to demonstrate minority support for GamerGate, and its critics have described it as AstroTurf from the start. That’s what we say currently, that’s what the reliable sources say, and that’s what Tim Schafer said. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC) How GDC broadly reacts to Gamergate might be useful for Industry Response section, but Tim Schafer makes a joke about Gamergate isn't useful for the article. Maybe in a couple days there will be a source with a broader viewpoint about things. — Strongjam (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) its interesting that the hordes can still be rallied to play white knight defending the reputation of their diverse #notyoursocks in such a manner as to impact the twitter trending; but without greater coverage and commentary, probably not something we need to include. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC) You're well aware Gamergate supporters contribute to this talk page. This is not your first uncivil comment here toward fellow editors. Tone it down. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I don't believe frank remarks on the abject stupidity of Gamergate and its supporters is at all a thing we need to be policing. Do note: TRPOD directed his comments to precisely zero fellow editors- remember to assume good faith. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Didn't feel like uncivil nor targeted, he had a point and made it clear and I can agree with it. However I'll see if more comes up about this. This did make the NYS rally up in anger, this'll be an intense weekend and I hope nothing really bad comes from it. As of now NYS exploded with new people from what I've seen on twitter and YT. Let's observe where it goes. If able could anyone put this thread into covered/hidden and make it not modifiable? TheRealVordox (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC) If this turns into harassment (what I'm seeing is more just the social namecalling) then we should include this the ongoing harassment. But if this is the only thing that happens, I'd say we should leave it out for now. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert by Strongjam

Regarding this revert of DHeyward.

• "In contrast to the Washington Post, The Telegraph and Le Monde that argue the hashtag was intended to be critical of Sarkheesian and Quinn" This needs to be sourced, and it's dangerously close to WP:OR with "In contrast to".
• "game show contestant turned commentator" Seems like an attempt to discredit the writer before we quote them.
• "Chu goes on and says that it's "white male journalists ... who take the risk of speaking out....". I can't find this in the cited source. Is there another source you meant to cite?

— Strongjam (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Self-reply.. I hate the slate website. Turns out you have to scroll down before it loads the rest of the article. Found the risk quote, but the elided bits seem like important context to me "it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it." By elliding the quote you change the meaning of it. He didn't say it is white male journalists who take the risk of speaking out. He's saying that women and people of color who, if they speak out, take the risk of being attacked. — Strongjam (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

He is absolutely saying that it's white male journalists that are taking the risk - and that the hashtag was to silence white men. The entire paragraph starts with "Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who...." --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

He's saying they slowly, imperfectly and infrequently act as a shield for women and minorities, "who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it." You change the meaning by cutting out significant parts of the sentence. — Strongjam (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Your first issue is the first sentence of that section that explicitly say it is Quinn and Sarkheesian that were targeted by NotYourShield. The source are Washington Post, The Telegraph and Le Monde . read the firs paragraph of that section.

• That's his own self-description of what he is. He is not an academic or expert. He's a blogger that gained fame through a game show. Those are his words.

−:* You found the quote, yet after reading the entire article about his theory that the NotYourShield hashtag was direceted at silencing white males, you have a problem attributing a pronoun? The active part of the sentence is it it's white male journalists doing the acting. Basic reading comprehension is that they are also the ones taking the risk by speaking out. The rest of the article is about how bad it is to silence "white males." What meaning did you think changed? --DHeyward (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Then cite them in-line and then find a source that says Chu is in contrast to them.
• Where is it his own self-description, and why is it important to describe him that way?
• I have a problem with the cutting the quote up so much to change the meaning. It's putting words in his mouth he did not say. Which we've already established in an earlier case is a BLP issue.

— Strongjam (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see this edit by DHeyward (which was thankfully reverted) as anything but WP:POINT making behaviour. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's another quote from the same article So what’s a really, really effective way to strangle any movement for change in the crib? The two-pronged approach of mocking privileged people for their pious hypocrisy in joining it and then letting marginalized people, once they have to stand alone, sink under the weight of being marginalized. This is the setting he is using for "white male journalists" being attacked. It's the whole point of his column and the fact that you need to change it's point to fit reality is the reason it should be gone as fringe view. He's claiming that the privileged white males are being mocked and attacked and that's his view of white male journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way about the article, but that doesn't change my mind about your edit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward: the point of the article is not that white male journalists take a risk by speaking out, it's that women and people of color take a great risk by speaking out and that #NotYourShield was a cynical (though unsuccessful) ploy to silence their allies. “And in the aggregate it makes it easier for women to get disproportionate harassment without resistance, and forces women to bear more of the burden of speaking out. And silencing women in the industry gets that much easier.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And that's pretty much mainstream view not fringe. See also, "White Knight" and "SJW", phrases used to try and mock "privileged people for their pious hypocrisy". — Strongjam (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The importance of speaking up in support for people who are unjustly attacked is proverbial and widely shared outside the caves of GamerGate; it's hardly fringe. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

However, we cannot do that on Wikipedia. Personally as individual editors that the attacks they've gotten are an afront to moral code, but Wikipedia is amoral and neutral, neither sympathetic for victims or condemining those that harassed. It is not our place to speak up in support in WP's voice, though we certainly can use the press's responses that in their words speak to their defense. We're trying to be objective here. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it's not a fringe view that Chu holds. Nothing more. — Strongjam (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph starts with To respond to widespread criticism of their movement as misogynistic, Gamergate supporters adopted a second Twitter hashtag, #NotYourShield, to claim that some women and minorities in the gaming community were also critical of Quinn and Sarkeesian, and argue that accusations of misogyny should not be used as a shield against criticism. How are you reconciling that sourced statement with Chu's view that NotYourShield was really about silencing white men? Why are there no other sources saying NotYourShield was designed to silence privileged white men? --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A) They're not mutually exclusive. B) The Telegraph talks about this exact thing. — Strongjam (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources (including Chu) agree that #NotYourShield was intended to deter allies of Gamergate victims from speaking out. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph doesn't mention white men (except as gamers) and certainly doesn't say the #NotYourShield is silencing white me (or anyone) - Quinn, in the article, takes the position that it silences minorities, but that's not Chu's view as he specifically laments privileged people being silenced. Again, what other sources besides Chu think that the #NotYourShield campaign was created to silence privileged white males? No source that I've seen says anything other than #NotYourShield was created as a counter to the "misogynist" label. That's in every source except Chu. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Chu assumes that his readers understand the premise that racism and sexism are deeply related -- that the misogyny of Gamergate reflects a hostility to the Other, one altogether too familiar in matters of race as well as gender. This has been widely understood since the 1970s. To silence one minority is to silence other minorities; to try to drive one group -- women -- out of the computer industry is to target other minorities as well. “First they came for the socialists...“ MarkBernstein (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)