Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
#. There is no reliable source that is saying this is gamers attacking only gamers, or the gaming community solely eating itself. In fact many go to great lengths to emphasise this is a culture war of Right / Libertarian vs Left / Progressive, and a continuation of the Anita Sarkeesian attacks still swirling the toilet bowl from the year or so earlier, and ultimately tying up with the Alt-Right pop culture warriors (Yiannopolis) far right agitators (Vox Day etc) into a wider spectrum of harassment against a broad spectrum of targets to do with progressive values as a means of self promotion in several cases. |
#. There is no reliable source that is saying this is gamers attacking only gamers, or the gaming community solely eating itself. In fact many go to great lengths to emphasise this is a culture war of Right / Libertarian vs Left / Progressive, and a continuation of the Anita Sarkeesian attacks still swirling the toilet bowl from the year or so earlier, and ultimately tying up with the Alt-Right pop culture warriors (Yiannopolis) far right agitators (Vox Day etc) into a wider spectrum of harassment against a broad spectrum of targets to do with progressive values as a means of self promotion in several cases. |
||
Without defining what Gamergate was (because we have plenty of sources giving it shape) or claimed (we have plenty of sources saying what it claimed to be), it remains hard to write a lede about the harassment that follows a logical flow. It's like trying to knit fog. [[User:Koncorde|Koncorde]] ([[User talk:Koncorde|talk]]) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
Without defining what Gamergate was (because we have plenty of sources giving it shape) or claimed (we have plenty of sources saying what it claimed to be), it remains hard to write a lede about the harassment that follows a logical flow. It's like trying to knit fog. [[User:Koncorde|Koncorde]] ([[User talk:Koncorde|talk]]) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:"The ''Gamergate Controversy'' is a bullshit set of terms used to describe a misogynist harassment campaign without actually calling it a "harassment campaign" while also not trying to hurt the feelings of a bunch of assholes. It was started by a bunch of chucklefucks who got lulz from online cruelty, egged on by third-rate celebrities, embraced by the deplorables, and amplified by bots and state actor campaigns."--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] ([[User talk:Jorm|talk]]) 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:23, 1 October 2020
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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.
Identity politics
Pinging @Zero Serenity:: Hey, I noticed you reverted my inclusion of the GamerGate movement in the Identity Politics category, could you please explain why you feel like the category does not apply? Looking at the definition on the Identity politics article, it seems very cut and dry: "A political approach wherein people of a particular religion, race, social background, class or other identifying factor form exclusive socio-political alliances, moving away from broad-based, coalitional politics to support and follow political movements that share a particular identifying quality with them. Its aim is to support and centre the concerns, agendas, and projects of particular groups, in accord with specific social and political changes" cave (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I also agree with the removal, at least for now. To support that category, the article would have to specifically mention identity politics at some point—not necessarily an entire section, but at least a sentence or two—which would also means we'd need multiple sources about both Gamergate and identity politics. So we'd really need sources > summary in article > category, not the other way around. Woodroar (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- This makes sense, I suppose. I'm sure I've read stuff before about GamerGate and its overlap with white male identity politics, I'll go round up a few RS later when I have some more time and propose a broader change. cave (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Woodroar: What do you think of adding something like this to the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the article?
"The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games, and over the social identity of gamers. A link has also been drawn between Gamergate and a broader movement of young men "with more staying power than may seem evident, and one that, for all its attacks on left-wing identity politics, is particularly focused on supplanting traditional conservatism with a white identity politics of the right".[1][2][3][4][5][6]" --cave (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Where the alt-right wants to take America — with or without Trump". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
- ^ "The alt-right, and how the paranoia of white identity politics fuelled Trump's rise". NewStatesman. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
- ^ David O. Dowling; Christopher Goetz; Daniel Lathrop (25 July 2019). "One Year of #GamerGate: The Shared Twitter Link as Emblem of Masculinist Gamer Identity". doi:10.1177/1555412019864857. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ "The Scared White People Who Love Donald Trump". Vice.
- ^ "5 Things to Know About the 'Alt-Right'". NBC News. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
- ^ "Now white people are trying to ruin "Star Wars": Racist reaction to new trailer is part Gamergate, part Donald Trump". Salon. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
- The lead section above the Contents is simply a summary of the body of the article. For us to add content there, we'd need a relatively significant section in the body itself, too. And for that, we'd need a lot of sources. I don't think we're there yet. Breaking down what you found:
- Washington Post is from their book review section, which means that it's summarizing those books instead of giving the Post's own analysis of Gamergate and identity politics. Beyond that, the mentions of Gamergate and identity policies are from two separate books and the Post isn't connecting them beyond its summary of the overlap between those books' themes.
- New Statesman is also a dual book review and has many of the same issues.
- I'm not able to access the Dowling/Goetz/Lathrop source.
- Vice name-drops Gamergate as something people are upset about, but falls short of directly stating that it's connected to identity politics.
- NBC News name-drops Gamergate as something Milo Yiannopoulos was involved in (plus harassment) but also falls short of making the connection between Gamergate and identity politics.
- Salon says that "white male victimology" was behind Gamergate but that's it.
- So we maybe have one academic source, but we'd need at least several. (Gamergate tends to get mentioned all over the place, and we long ago decided to cut out content that's only supported by one or two sources. See WP:DUE for our policy on balancing articles proportionally around sources.) And those sources need to directly and unambiguously connect Gamergate with identity politics. I'm not sure I've ever read a source that did, but at the same time I think the connection is reasonable enough that they're probably out there. Woodroar (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also sourcing one sentence to one source for the lede is very much putting a lot of weight behind that opinion, plus I question the validity of any source writing about Gamergate after 2016 then trying to retcon both the link to the Alt-Right and white identity politics. 1. there will be almost no contemporaneous source to support a largely anonymous source being "white" or "male" (it was inferred that they were misogynistic quite often, and certainly many were male, but most sources try not to gender those responsible. 2. There is a big difference between Gamergate and the Alt Right; there is however an overlap in some key individuals who sought to exploit it - which muddies the water. Koncorde (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
First sentences?
"The Gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate."
This sentence is completely useless. It doesn't explain what gamergate is and I feel it presumes the reader already has an idea of the topic. It immediately said where it stemmed from but doesn't explain what it is. Shouldn't the first thing be an explanation of what the article is about?
Can it be rewritten to something like:
Gamergate controversy is a blanket term used to describe an online harassment campaign in the gaming community, conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate. The controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture.
I'm not good at writing but as a reader I had to read multiple filler sentences just to get to the jist of what the article is supposed to be talking about in the first place.
Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would support this revision. I especially think citing it as a "blanket term" is useful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Its not bad, though I would adjust that last sentence to say it was essentially pro-sexism and anti-progressivism, since the way it reads now seems to conflate the two a bit. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- A +1 from me Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Its not bad, though I would adjust that last sentence to say it was essentially pro-sexism and anti-progressivism, since the way it reads now seems to conflate the two a bit. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I edited it, and made sure to include the word gamers since otherwise it's unclear who's conducting the harassment, the developers, journalists, or consumers themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Domna Ba'al (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Gamers is incorrect, or at least misleading. A significant amount of the harassment came from completely unrelated people like Yiannopolis and a lot of the attacks and harassment was of other gamers who were defending the same progressive ideas. Koncorde (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, on the same line of thought, it wasn't just the "gaming community", the Hugo's being an obvious example, but also the root cause of the harassment was still a jilted boyfriend attacking his ex. There's no functional need for it to be about gaming, or gamers, or video games - because per the sources, it's very much about attacking progressivism, feminism and inclusivity in a broad range of medium whether or not the charges actually stick. Koncorde (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Koncorde's thoughts here and tried to add a couple words to address them while changing as little as possible. Thus I have the controversy "beginning" in the gaming community, and perpetrated by gamers "and others." I'll be the first to say they're not the best, but I thought a marginal improvement. Feel free to undo/change/improve. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I edited it, and made sure to include the word gamers since otherwise it's unclear who's conducting the harassment, the developers, journalists, or consumers themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Domna Ba'al (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Just to return the age old issue of the intro and why it reads so poorly
So I have covered this before multiple times but here we go again:
- . The main issue is that we fail to treat "Gamergate controversy" as a "controversy about Gamergate" as movement / entity where we can then define gamergate as both as "conspiracy theory about alleged ethical issues in the games media"[1][2] and "a pseudonymous harassment campaign targeting x, y, z while claiming their interests were solely in ethics in journalism".
- . The Gamergate hashtag, and the controversy of its use, was intrinsically linked to the whole "5 Guys" "Quinnspiracy" attack line, and was not fundamentally started by, or propagated by gamers - and we'll never be able to prove it anywaaaay because anon trolls is anon trolls. It was started by Adam Baldwin who has pretty much nothing to do with gaming from what I can see in commenting on an Internet Aristocrat video (plus Mundane Matt and others). This was picked up synchronously with the whole "gamers are dead" journalism line and conflated into the broader journalistic claims of "muh ethics". A few named figureheads in the gaming community aside, a lot of the names associated with the events have little to do with gaming.
- . There is no reliable source that is saying this is gamers attacking only gamers, or the gaming community solely eating itself. In fact many go to great lengths to emphasise this is a culture war of Right / Libertarian vs Left / Progressive, and a continuation of the Anita Sarkeesian attacks still swirling the toilet bowl from the year or so earlier, and ultimately tying up with the Alt-Right pop culture warriors (Yiannopolis) far right agitators (Vox Day etc) into a wider spectrum of harassment against a broad spectrum of targets to do with progressive values as a means of self promotion in several cases.
Without defining what Gamergate was (because we have plenty of sources giving it shape) or claimed (we have plenty of sources saying what it claimed to be), it remains hard to write a lede about the harassment that follows a logical flow. It's like trying to knit fog. Koncorde (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- "The Gamergate Controversy is a bullshit set of terms used to describe a misogynist harassment campaign without actually calling it a "harassment campaign" while also not trying to hurt the feelings of a bunch of assholes. It was started by a bunch of chucklefucks who got lulz from online cruelty, egged on by third-rate celebrities, embraced by the deplorables, and amplified by bots and state actor campaigns."--Jorm (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)