![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | |
---|---|
![]() Q1: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to GamerGate. Can I use it as a source in the article?
A1: All sources used in the article must comply with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for biographical content on a living person. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would a) tarnish the quality of Wikipedia's information and b) potentially open up Wikipedia to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people.
Q2: Why is Wikipedia preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other?
A2: Content on Wikipedia is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, Wall Street Journal, etc). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP).
Q3: Can I use a particular article as a source?
A3: What sources can be used in Wikipedia is governed by our reliable sources policy, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard.
Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources?
A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Wikipedia documents what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Wikipedia's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources.
In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously. Q5: Why are there no citations in the lede?
A5: The lede is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, and therefore does not require sources.
|
![]() |
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: |
---|---|
|
![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
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.
unicorn booty: RS? & Anthony Burch interview
https://unicornbooty.com/interview-borderlands-2-writer-anthony-burch-wants-more-sexes-in-gaming/
- Is unicornbooty RS?
- It's an interview, probably UNDUE, but interesting perhaps.
- Interesting: "If we’re using “harassment” as a synonym for “GamerGate,” I’m happy to say it hasn’t affected me, nor anyone I’ve worked with in the slightest. The vast majority of developers I’ve worked for and with simply don’t know what the hell GamerGate even is. If they’ve heard of it, they have a general sense that it’s a gross, troll-y movement that’s not worth thinking about for more than a few seconds. I’ve seen far more instances of games being made more inclusive or diverse due to fan feedback than I’ve seen, I dunno, developers intentionally cutting characters of color because they’re worried about getting doxxed or something."
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
observer.com: Tweets Suggest Patreon Hack May Be GamerGate Related
http://observer.com/2015/10/tweets-suggest-patreon-hack-may-be-gamergate-related/
I'm not familiar with observer.com. RS status?
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Observer.com is the web presence of The New York Observer, which has, so far as I know, strong editorial policies and some well known writers and alumni. For me, it's a pretty easy call that it meets the RS standard--though I haven't checked the Wikipedia archives. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Having investigated a bit further, it seems to me like yet another promising lead, but once more a situation where we should wait to see if there is more media pick-up, so to speak. Thanks again. Dumuzid (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like there is a follow up article: http://observer.com/2015/10/the-patreon-hack-14-gigabytes-of-trolling/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, rather hilariously that called BS on them posting the original story was Randi Harper. The follow up does offer some interesting points on GG's structure as a whole too, I think.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like there is a follow up article: http://observer.com/2015/10/the-patreon-hack-14-gigabytes-of-trolling/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Having investigated a bit further, it seems to me like yet another promising lead, but once more a situation where we should wait to see if there is more media pick-up, so to speak. Thanks again. Dumuzid (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Removal of "misogynistic" from 'campaign' language re: Ms. Quinn
Bilby, I see your point, though for me, I think the sources offer at least some support for the wording as it existed. I think to entirely remove the gendered component is a disservice to the sources cited; would you perhaps accept "sexist" as a better descriptor? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that misogyny isn't the right term - I'm currently looking to see if we have a good source available to support it. I expect that we do, it is just that neither of the sources being used did, and to make that claim I think we need to remove it and then find a source, rather than leave it in there when it isn't supported fully. I've been through about 15 articles, and none are quite what I'm looking for, but I expect to find something. So at this stage I'd hold out for a bit until we know whether or not there is a reference to support it as it was written.
- This is a problem I'm hitting a lot while checking sources - we seem to have a problem with how sources are being used, but there is normally support for the claim if you track down a more appropriate reference and remove those that don't help. I don't know how this came about, but my guess is that a lot of the wording has been modified and strengthened after sources were added, and accidentally went beyond them, without updates references to match. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Heron, Belford and Goker use the term ("Over the months of August and September in 2014, an independent game developer by the name of Zoe Quinn and her friends have found themselves the target of an equally misogynist backlash by a coordinated conspiracy.") There are probably lots of others (when I was searching the refs, the one I checked before that sort of did, too -- the Ars Technica bit on the next sentence says "The logs show a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism"), but that one is probably the best source for it. You should generally check the sentences around the one you're looking at before removing stuff or adding citation-needed tags; often what happens is that a sentence gets cut in two or shuffled around, and sources that cover both parts only end up on one of them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
removing refs
@Bilby: before removing a ref, please check if it belongs to a nearby sentence. The way editing happened, some sentence were split or spliced together in ways that didn't correct the refs. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I restored the ref and moved it to the right place. I may have a 1RR problem because of this. Suggestions? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem with seeing it put it where you have placed it. I don't think does anything useful, but it does no harm. - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- 1) I had to do two reverts. 2) I'm looking more closely at that ref, and I'm not convinced it's useful. But for the moment, I'm going to take the conservative path and add it where it was supposed to be. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- More thoughts: I think the DailyFish ref is better than the BI ref. I think the BI ref either got most of its content edited out, or that it was used as an extra reference when the edit warring was much worse - when more RS was needed to support an edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- 1) I had to do two reverts. 2) I'm looking more closely at that ref, and I'm not convinced it's useful. But for the moment, I'm going to take the conservative path and add it where it was supposed to be. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem with seeing it put it where you have placed it. I don't think does anything useful, but it does no harm. - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- It won't be violating 1RR as long as the reverts are in the same consecutive stream of edits- that counts as one revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Lead Sentence Proposal
Ever since I first visited this page, I found the first few sentences really muddled, and I left the article more confused about what Gamergate was than when I started. Today I read a neutral one-sentence summary that I feel really crystallizes both sides, and I'd like to propose (with slight re-wording so that it fits in an encyclopedia article) that the lead sentence be edited somewhat to reflect this description:
"Gamergate, an online backlash against progressive influence in gaming which cannot be described neutrally in one sentence. Its supporters say the whole thing was really about ethics in gaming journalism, but the movement gained widespread attention for a subset of Gamergate’s supporters, who conducted several troubling harassment campaigns against women in gaming and journalists."
I'd leave out the striked-through part as I don't feel that fits in a wikipedia article, although that portion could be used later in the article as part of an outline of how difficult it is to define "Gamergate." The whole quote came from this Washington Post article. I'd appreciate editors' thoughts on this. Rockypedia (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- With all due respect, that does not strike me as a good representation of either the content of the article or the bulk of the reliable sources. Thanks for the suggestion, however. Dumuzid (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Well, I realize I didn't frame it the way I'd like to see it worked into the article. I would leave the 1st sentence in the current article as is. Here's what I'd propose as the second sentence:
- "Supporters claim that Gamergate is about ethics in gaming journalism, but the movement gained widespread attention for a subset of Gamergate’s supporters, who conducted several troubling harassment campaigns against women in gaming and journalists, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian."
- That's more in line with what the content of the article is, and provides a succinct summary of who the two major sides are. As I said, as someone who was unfamiliar with the controversy, the current content did not at all explain to me what Gamergate "was". If you're someone who's intimately familiar with the topic, I think maybe a step back to see how the article reads to the more unfamiliar masses might be appropriate. Rockypedia (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I think the current intro does an okay job of summing up the "sides," though it could of course be improved. To me, the question is what is notable about these events, and the reliable sources don't spend much time on the ethics claims. While what you propose might be a good start to "an introduction to #Gamergate," it still strikes me as not in line with the bulk of reliable sources insofar as it puts the emphasis in different places, and thus (to my mind) is not how Wikipedia should put it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable - I would definitely like to see the first two sentences improved, to clarify what Gamergate is about, for people that aren't necessarily knee-deep in the daily goings-on of the gamer world. I have to think that while the majority of people editing this topic appear to be intimately familiar with it, the majority of people visiting this page just to read about it aren't as well-versed. I consider myself a reasonably smart guy, and I was really confused by the first paragraph. Rockypedia (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the current intro does an okay job of summing up the "sides," though it could of course be improved. To me, the question is what is notable about these events, and the reliable sources don't spend much time on the ethics claims. While what you propose might be a good start to "an introduction to #Gamergate," it still strikes me as not in line with the bulk of reliable sources insofar as it puts the emphasis in different places, and thus (to my mind) is not how Wikipedia should put it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
-
I agree that the current introduction does a much better job at summarizing the article, and the reliable sources, than this proposal, which creates a false equivalence between something all sources agree on -- Gamergate’s campaign of misogynistic threats -- and the alleged claims of a small and anonymous faction that everything we know about Gamergate was in fact performed by a subset of Gamergate, and there's another Gamergate out there that is really about ethics and is really the real Gamergate. The Real Gamergate that's really about real ethics sounds real nice, but we can't write about that because almost no really reliable sources discuss it, and it has no notability at all. Meanwhile, the harassment has been discussed in plenty of real newspapers and magazines and continues to afflict real people.
As is my custom when a fresh editor arrives here eager to rebalance the lede, I'd like to remind people that, while Gamergate is at best tenuously termed a "movement", there is no question that it is a terrorist organization -- it is observably organized and its notably operations have been promulgation of highly visible threats to harm women in computing, clearly intended to deter other women from pursuing work in the field. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Whoa, slow down - I'm hardly a "fresh editor", and I happen to agree completely with your point that Gamergate is a terrorist organization. The thing is, I didn't get to that understanding from this article, and certainly not from the lead. I had to go further and one of the articles that actually explained it to me clearly was that Washington Post article. Your point about the "false equivalence" is well taken and well made - I'm glad I came here first before trying to edit the lead on my own, because now I see how that would be a concern. All I'm trying to say is that if you really want to get the message across about what Gamergate really is, the current lead does a poor job of that - not necessarily because it doesn't contain all the info, but because seems to be written for people who already know what Gamergate is, not those looking for info. I'm hoping to help, and get help, improving that. Rockypedia (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Rocky, what do you think of this suggestion to make the first opening sentences less muddled: "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment was notably sexist, and included the doxing of its targets, threats of rape and death threats, such as a mass shooting threat in protest of a speech featuring Sarkeesian." PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Rockypedia:: When I termed you "fresh" I meant, of course, that you were new to this page, not that I wasn’t aware of your long history of contributions. As you probably know, this question appears over and over through the archives, and is raised in some form or other at surprisingly-consistent intervals. The protracted conflicts on this page have, I agree, muddied the lede; the fiercely edit-warred insistence that certain editors know what Gamergate really involves, or that all the notable Gamergate actions derived not from Gamergate but from other people nefariously using the name, muddy it further. We have, at best, weak anonymous sources that claim Gamergate was concerned about ethics; these claims, moreover, make no sense because Gamergate’s actions have seldom concerned ethics. If we want to say, "Gamergate is a terrorist conspiracy", that would be clearer and consistent with the best sources.
-
- Because Gamergate has no members, no manifesto, and no spokesman, we cannot know what Gamergate really is: we can only know what Gamergate does. I broadly concur with @PeterTheFourth:'s proposal, though I'm sorry to say that the harassment campaign continues. It’s also approaching time for us to seriously consider covering Gamergate’s well-documented efforts to subvert Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gotcha, all good points. Referring back to PeterTheFourth's proposed first sentence - I think that's definitely an improvement. I also feel the attacker's attempts to subvert wikipedia should be documented, and at least alluded to in the lead. My biggest source of confusion was "where did the term Gamergate come from" - and I think including a line that talks about how Gamergate attackers claim that Gamergate was about ethics in game journalism would make sense - as long as it's also made clear, in the same sentence, that that's a spurious claim.
- I do thank you all for treating this seriously, and for all the work that you've obviously done already. Rockypedia (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the description of these concerns in the second paragraph is insufficient, or that it would merely be better placed in the first paragraph of the lede? I'm not sure expansion is viable with the weighting of sources we have, but I'm fine with moving things around a bit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- A thought: "The Gamergate controversy concerns a harassment campaign starting in 2014 that targeted several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. Harassment expanded to include journalists they perceived as covering them in an unfavourable and thus unethical light." PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the description of these concerns in the second paragraph is insufficient, or that it would merely be better placed in the first paragraph of the lede? I'm not sure expansion is viable with the weighting of sources we have, but I'm fine with moving things around a bit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because Gamergate has no members, no manifesto, and no spokesman, we cannot know what Gamergate really is: we can only know what Gamergate does. I broadly concur with @PeterTheFourth:'s proposal, though I'm sorry to say that the harassment campaign continues. It’s also approaching time for us to seriously consider covering Gamergate’s well-documented efforts to subvert Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)