PeterTheFourth (talk | contribs) →We should make this article less biased: Hatting per WP:FORUM- please try to suggest specific actionable improvements. |
Destructor3 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
::The article you gave was already linked by Masem. We're wondering if this is enough to build an inclusion on (in my humble opinion it's really not for now). [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC) |
::The article you gave was already linked by Masem. We're wondering if this is enough to build an inclusion on (in my humble opinion it's really not for now). [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
::As noted above, the only affirmed fact we have is that the meetup was terminated early due to a reported fire drill. There does exist that tweet and there does exist the police presence but we have no idea if these are connected yet. Even if they were, where your addition in the lead was the wrong place as this would be taken as harassment towards GG supporters, not what GG is claimed to have done. (Unless at the end of the day, it was shown as GGs negatively attacking their own but there's no evidence of that now). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC) |
::As noted above, the only affirmed fact we have is that the meetup was terminated early due to a reported fire drill. There does exist that tweet and there does exist the police presence but we have no idea if these are connected yet. Even if they were, where your addition in the lead was the wrong place as this would be taken as harassment towards GG supporters, not what GG is claimed to have done. (Unless at the end of the day, it was shown as GGs negatively attacking their own but there's no evidence of that now). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
::: This is harassing, no threatening GG Supporters. |
|||
== We should make this article less biased == |
== We should make this article less biased == |
Revision as of 03:55, 3 May 2015
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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.
Removing a para from "In other media"
This paragraph is embarrassing.
- I have no idea what "Patterns of behavior related to the ongoing culture war that has been demonstrated by the Gamergate controversy have been identified in other media areas." is supposed to convey to the reader that couldn't just be done by saying what we actually mean. Reads like throat clearing to me, at best.
- "...to counter an increase in the diversity of the awards given out..." Unless the Hugos added new categories that's probably not what we mean.
- "some with connections to the Gamergate hashtag" How do you get a connection to a hashtag?
- "...which has been compared the cultural divide and motivations of the Gamergate controversy." By whom? And what is being compared? What is the "cultural divide" of gamergate? And why, given that we're so picky about ascribing motivation to GG to we blithely accept that comparison here?
- "... Some revisionings of popular comic book characters in 2014" What is a "revisioning"?
- "... led to similar outcries and pushbacks by a number of readers..." This is bush league. A "number of readers"? Also "pushbacks" is not a word. And who is judging the complaints of the puppies to be "similar" to the complaints about Thor et al.? Not the salon article, because it came out before the nominees were released. The atlantic makes some comparisons between GG and the Hugos but not the Hugos and comics, probably because the complaints aren't actually similar.
- "...in a manner that has been compared to Gamergate." Again, compared by whom? Is there any evidence that this is something other than Milo having a tantrum about the 21st century and Salon getting the vapors over it? Because I'm not seeing it.
- "...including Yiannopoulos..." Yeah, including Yiannopoulos because he's the focus of that Salon post. There may be other readers, but salon only links out to Yiannopoulos and focuses on him. It's unacceptable to weasel out of that fact about the source by including its main focus as a "by the by". It's more frustrating because Salon out and out says it's an "[attempt] at manufacturing controversy" and we've somehow digested that and presented it to the reader as though it were an actual live issue without any additional sourcing.
- "what they perceive as forced diversity into the comic books" What in the ham sandwich is forced diversity (or "the comic books")? And here again we're ascribing motive unnecessarily. Aside from invective, the source is pretty unclear on the motives of "readers". If we're interested in Yiannopoulos's motives (no idea why we would be) then he has a website we can link to.
- The use of passive voice and compound sentences (really, comma splices) throughout makes it difficult to figure out who is doing what to whom and why.
I'm also not sure why this belongs in "In other media" as that is a section normally used for stuff in the first graf (and not the second, but that's another fight). We should probably have something about the Hugos on the page, given that there are a raft of sources on the subject. I don't know how many sources there are connecting GG to complaints about comics, but if the Salon source is all we have I don't see why it needs to be in the article.
We have two thoughts we want to convey to the reader. First, that the Sad/Rabid puppies takeover of the Hugos is both reminiscent of and linked to GG. Second, that Milo Yiannopoulos is mad about a thing and Salon is mad about that (and this is somehow linked to GG). We don't do a good job of conveying that. So I'm removing it. Protonk (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Then fix it but don't remove it. If it is there, and perhaps tagged with a copyedit tag, then others know there might be problems. Unless there's outright BLP issues (which there aren't in this) removal is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- No. A fix would be to reduce it to two declarative sentences (or one, given that I'm only really convinced that the Hugo mention belongs). You can feel free to do that yourself. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Further, because we require BLP violations be removed does not imply that the only content which should be removed is that which violates BLP. We remove content all the time from articles where it detracts from the reader's understanding or where the information it presents is marginal. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- However, we've had discussions about including this material (not the specific language) in the past, so removing information that was agreed to inclusion by consensus is not helpful. Tagging for copyediting problem, yes, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- These are not just copyediting problems. The content that was removed is inaccurate, uses weasel words to avoid specifying claims and arguably misrepresents sources. Consensus that we add content isn't consensus to keep it around in whatever form it took when it first landed. And please don't patronize me by telling me what's "helpful" and "fine". Protonk (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone one of the points you make above is easily fixed if they were identified on the talk page first. I agree with your points of what was wrong but all of that is one wordsmith away from a fix, save for what you think was the connection between the Hugo and comics, which there was none - its Hugo to GG, and separately comics to GG. If the language suggested this, it should be cleaned up. Removal of content that is otherwise not an immediate content problem (like BLP or unsourced material) and that can be fixed is counter to WP policies, particularly on a page like this. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Everyone one of the points you make above is easily fixed if they were identified on the talk page first." I did just identify them on the talk page.
- The two discussion I see about the Hugos are here and here. Is there another discussion I'm missing? Because neither of those show thunderous approval for including this material. If I'm to be beaten about the head and shoulders for not respecting consensus, I'd like to see one.
- I'm not going to go in circles about the content removal question. You have made the same statement twice now. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone one of the points you make above is easily fixed if they were identified on the talk page first. I agree with your points of what was wrong but all of that is one wordsmith away from a fix, save for what you think was the connection between the Hugo and comics, which there was none - its Hugo to GG, and separately comics to GG. If the language suggested this, it should be cleaned up. Removal of content that is otherwise not an immediate content problem (like BLP or unsourced material) and that can be fixed is counter to WP policies, particularly on a page like this. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- These are not just copyediting problems. The content that was removed is inaccurate, uses weasel words to avoid specifying claims and arguably misrepresents sources. Consensus that we add content isn't consensus to keep it around in whatever form it took when it first landed. And please don't patronize me by telling me what's "helpful" and "fine". Protonk (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- However, we've had discussions about including this material (not the specific language) in the past, so removing information that was agreed to inclusion by consensus is not helpful. Tagging for copyediting problem, yes, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Protonk: I don't disagree, but n practical terms it might be easier if you'd propose that sentence or two. You're not alone in your concerns here, but I do think the connection to the Hugo mess should be drawn explicitly. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I've added the paragraph back with edits. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The more I read and re-read it, I support taking out the Hugos mention entirely. It strikes me as essentially an out-of-control 'see also.' It's certainly tangentially related, but I don't think the mere presence of Mr. Beale makes it worthy of inclusion. Dumuzid (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Two things:
- It doesn't belong in "In other media", period. It's a weird non-sequitor to go from Law and Order to an actual thing that happened in a section not normally about that. I'm not sure (yet) where else to slot it, but it belongs somewhere else.
- I think it plainly deserves mentioning. We haven't really picked the best source for that and using the source we do makes it seem tangential, but they're pretty closely related. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Two things:
- Obviously, given other sources it could definitely go in (and I personally suspect the connection is pretty close), but all I could find in my grueling few minutes of searches were sources essentially saying "this is reminiscent of gamergate." I'd say we nix it until an RS has something more than that to offer, maybe? Dumuzid (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Depression Quest
Im looking at the reviews for Depression Quest and it looks like the reviews were mixed at best. Is there a reason as to why the sentence is constructed as "Though the game was positively met by critics"? Would it not be more accurate to say the game was reviewed positively by "some" critics? Cavalierman (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please cite the reviews in independent reliable sources which were negative, Cavalierman. Then, we will have a basis for talking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe Dumzid is right and we should get rid of the whole "was met positively". Here are the reviews I was talking about:
The first review I looked at was Reaxxion: http://www.reaxxion.com/2167/a-review-of-the-anti-game-depression-quest The other one I looked at was Operation Ranfall. http://operationrainfall.com/2014/08/26/review-depression-quest/ Both give a negative overall review. Are these not considered "critics" Cavalierman (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Cavalierman:It would be preferable if you could cite secondary sources for your proposed change, rather than primary sources like the reviews themselves. I think 'was met positively' is fair given the reliable sources, though a qualifier like "for the most part" might be accurate, but it seems to be a case of 'omit needless words' for me. Dumuzid (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is our obligation to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say, and that is in no way original research. Neither of the sources you linked to qualify as reliable sources here on Wikipedia. They are basically blog posts by individuals expressing their own Individual opinions. Those sources show no signs of professional editorial control, fact checking or error correction. I consider them worthless here on Wikipedia. If a large majority of actual reliable sources reviewing a game, or a movie, or a book are positive, we say so. If it is a 65-35 split, we say most reviewers were positive but some dissented, and summarize appropriately. If 98% were positive, but 2% fringe sources dissented, we give very little or no attention to the fringe sources. So, how does it break down here? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I checked through the sources we had for that bit, the only source that mentioned the amount of positive reviews stated that the game received near-universally positive reviews so that's how I've phrased it in our article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Both Cullen + Peter are right here. We're looking at reviews from mainstream/well-established sites simply because anyone with a computer and internet connection can claim to be a reviewer, so we use what is stated about reviews from an established presence. It's well understood (even before GG) that the non-mainstream reviews were poor and perhaps influenced by how some saw Quinn rather than the aspect of the game, and that's factored in the article appropriately already. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I checked through the sources we had for that bit, the only source that mentioned the amount of positive reviews stated that the game received near-universally positive reviews so that's how I've phrased it in our article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is our obligation to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say, and that is in no way original research. Neither of the sources you linked to qualify as reliable sources here on Wikipedia. They are basically blog posts by individuals expressing their own Individual opinions. Those sources show no signs of professional editorial control, fact checking or error correction. I consider them worthless here on Wikipedia. If a large majority of actual reliable sources reviewing a game, or a movie, or a book are positive, we say so. If it is a 65-35 split, we say most reviewers were positive but some dissented, and summarize appropriately. If 98% were positive, but 2% fringe sources dissented, we give very little or no attention to the fringe sources. So, how does it break down here? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Cavalierman:It would be preferable if you could cite secondary sources for your proposed change, rather than primary sources like the reviews themselves. I think 'was met positively' is fair given the reliable sources, though a qualifier like "for the most part" might be accurate, but it seems to be a case of 'omit needless words' for me. Dumuzid (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- It should reflect Depression Quest#Reception. i.e. not fun. dark, educational. --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This seems extraneous to me. Isn't linking to the game's own entry enough? I don't see how that really affects this article. Dumuzid (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am not seeing where in the references Depression-Quest received "near-universal" positive reviews. As a matter of fact, can anyone provide more than one reliable source that gives DQ a positive review? I am excluding blogs and unreliable sources- I am talking about actual mainstream reviews and critics who received the game positively. I am only finding one. Cavalierman (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Aja Romano for the Daily Dot writes "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression..." Phil Savage for PC Gamer writes "Depression Quest is a particularly interesting pick. Developed by Zoe Quinn, it's a moving and revealing insight into what it's like to live with depression." You're welcome. Source: The citations directly after the phrasing you are criticising. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is very interesting. In the Daily Dot Article NBSB references, the quote reads as follows (notice the embedded links as they were in the original quote): "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression, many gamers saw it differently." If we look at the first "review" linked (rockpapershotgun), there is no review at all. The author admits to have never played the game. The second review is indeed positive, yet the third piece from destructoid is merely a preview/description. The author gives no indication that he ever played the game, much less a review. So we have exactly one source that apparently misinterpreted other sources, and this is the basis for "nearly universal positive reviews"? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this seems to be jumping to conclusions not to mention misleading our readers. Thoughts? Cavalierman (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Our job is to reflect reliable sources, not research the claims they make. I suggest you read our policies about original research on WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Peter is correct, reliable sourcing call the reviews positive. But we should be aware as editors that the review like that of RPS (first link above) is the type of review that triggered the ethical concerns of GG. No, we can't make that statement as no other source explicitly mentions that so it is otherwise OR, but we should be aware of that type of history is involved. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- What “ethical” concern, precisely, does Adam Smith’s short announcement in Rock Paper Scissors raise? And what policy permits us to use this page to publicize that Mr. Smith’s writing raises ethical concerns? I don’t recall seeing a reliable source say that, there’s no reliable source cited above, and since Adam Smith’s photo and biography appear on the masthead page I expect he’s a living person. Adam Smith is the reviews editor of the site, he expressed an opinion, the site published it. That’s how publishing works. I suggest that you rephrase or strike. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not to put too fine a point on it, but the site is "Rock, Paper, Shotgun." That being said, I guess it might be argued that it's not really a positive review, but like MarkBernstein, I completely fail to see how it raises any ethical concern whatsoever. Should Depression Quest not be reviewed by anyone whose life has been touched by depression? I also agree that it borders on a BLP issue. Taking a step back, might this entire conversation be better situated at Depression Quest? Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- The issue as related to the GG situation (just for clarity) is that GG would state that because Adam Smith actually never played the game beyond looking at the title screen (per his review) but immediately praised the title for dealing with the topic of depression, he gave a positive review for it's message and not for gameplay, graphics, etc., what GG proponents would say are necessary as part of a proper "objective review". Focusing on the message instead of that, in their minds, is an ethical concern because the reviewer is putting message over material content and failing to serve what GG sees as the main gaming audience. Again, that's GG's line of logic, not mine, nor that of most other people; we have this logic already discussed in the article, just not discussed in any RS in the specific context of the DQ reviews. But for purposes of improving this article, there's not much else we can say to this. RS say that DQ had positive reviews, and we know there was some backlash from those reviews, but the clarity of the backlash would not come until GG got into full swing and the call for "objective reviews" came out. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- And we know all this... how, precisely? How do we know this is GG's line of logic? Does any reliable source say that this is or was GG's logic? Moreover, here on this talk page, a named individual is still being accused of hazy “ethical” transgressions which are neither specifically stated here nor supported by reliable sources. In point of fact, the reliable sources have indicated that the so-called “ethical” concerns you raise in the paragraph above are no such thing. Writers frequently express interest or excitement in forthcoming work because of its subject matter or authorship, and there is no reason to think this an ethical concern. Suggesting ethical concerns exist regarding the work of a specific writer, on the other hand, requires a specific standard of evidence called WP:BLP, and we're still waiting for that. Suggestion: it's time for this discussion to put on a hat. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, let's end this. And I know "it's about ethics in game journalism" has become the slogan for gamergate, but I am still a bit taken aback to see a specific, named person accused of ethical indiscretions by "failing to serve...the main gaming audience." Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- No BLP statement has been made here. I am not making any such accusation towards Adam, just that this is what GG would want people to think, and why this post came up in the first place about what someone claimed were poor quality reviews. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Masem, on balance I don't think this is a BLP issue, but for me, it comes uncomfortably close. If you were to report that "followers of 52-pickup-gate believe Dumuzid has committed several murders," I think you'd agree we'd have a problem despite sourcing such a claim. Dumuzid (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- No BLP statement has been made here. I am not making any such accusation towards Adam, just that this is what GG would want people to think, and why this post came up in the first place about what someone claimed were poor quality reviews. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes we have sources that explain - not specific to any review but reviews in general - that GG wants what they call "objective reviews" that ignore any messages or story or the like in games and focus on the gameplay, graphics, and mechanics. (eg [1], [2]). I'm only explaining that this is how the GG side thinks, for purposes of understanding for us editors of why anyone would question the claim that DQ was critically acclaimed, and how these DQ reviews would fall into GG's idea that there were ethical problems with these critics and sites. I am not stating from my own POV that there's any ethical issues here at all, only to describe the GG logic here. This information cannot be added because there's no appropriate sourcing to tie the DQ reviews to GG's "objective reviews", but only that this line of reasoning exists within GG, and we should be aware this does exists to prevent its addition without forthcoming sourcing. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- And dont forget the objective "how fun it is".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- But, no Masem, we do not need to take into any account gg's completely divorced from reality misconstruing of words. we are not their therapists nor a substitute for an educational system which has obviously greatly failed them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- We are an objective source, so we absolutely need to have clarity without judgement of what their stance is, regardless of how "wrong" the predominate POV says that stance is. This doesn't have to be clarity to be repeated in the article (particularly if there's no RSes to work from) but a baseline that editors working on the article understand as to be able to place other content in place around it. Articles may be based primarily on content from RS, but it is extremely important to keep in mind when using those RSes what exists beyond that "garden wall" to write effectively about it; in our case, our breakdown of GG is a novel approach compared to all other sources, but that's our ability as a tertiary sources to look at the big picture and organize and incorporate the best sources to our ability, but that can't be done with ones' head stuck to only the given RSes. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- We are an objective source when we objectively report what the reliable sources have reported. We are an UNobjective source when we start with the premise that the reliable sources for some reason (its a great conspiracy!) are not actually reporting accurately and then try to spin the content to make up for what the gamergaters (well some gamergaters - not those the are sending death and rape threats , cause we know that they are not really gamergaters - but we know which ones are the actual true gamergaters and are going to read their minds) really are about. Ludicrous hogwash counter to EVERY policy of the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Again, WP:NPOV allows use to determine, as editors via consensus, if an RS stating something as fact really should be stated as opinion. We have that ability to consider what is beyond the RSes to understand the larger picture. So yes, policy does allow for this. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which part of NPOV are you citing here? Kaciemonster (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.". --MASEM (t) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- That piece of policy describes how to handle opinions in reliable sources. It doesn't say anything about using "what is beyond the RSes to understand the larger picture" or coming to a consensus to add in as an opinion what a reliable source states as a fact. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's implicit - to understand if a source makes a statement but does not clarify if the statement is a fact or an opinion in their voice, you have to understand how that statement fits in context of the topic, and that requires understanding the full picture, not just what RSes say. And if it clear that the statement made by the RS is an opinion counter to the larger picture, we should thus attribute as an opinion. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, it isn't remotely implied from that piece of policy that we should be doing original research to determine whether or not we should state a fact from a reliable source as an opinion. It's saying to state opinions as opinion. Note the other policy at WP:NPOV: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Masem: Who has a "full understanding" of the topic and how is the insinuation of that "understanding" into an article without sourcing not prima facia OR? Protonk (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes it is. First, understand that anytime we summarize an RS we engage in OR, but it is an acceptable level of OR for WP's as long as we don't mistate the source. Determining if a source is speaking as fact or as opinion is an acceptable amount of OR, since that's basically the difference of saying "Water is wet" vs "John Smith said water is wet". Further, "Avoid stating facts as opinions" applies to uncontested facts, and that's where knowing what is beyond the RSes come in. We know that GG have repeated countered the claims about their group, so any "facts" about GG that they have countered should be considered opinions, even if there's a possibly that these GG counterstatements are fabrications. Note that we don't have to include the counterstatement aspect, just instead of saying "GG is anti-feminist" that "GG is said to be anti-feminist by the mainstream press." That's it, it's not that difficult to use it that way. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- We should not be using information that cannot be found in reliable sources to determine how we write our article. The policy that you cited does not even remotely suggest that. If different reliable sources didn't agree on whether or not "GG is anti-feminist" we state it as an opinion. It is not within policy, however, to give priority to an opinion that we can't even source in an article, which is what we'd be doing if we consider GG's opinion of themselves of higher importance than the analysis of reliable sources. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes it is. First, understand that anytime we summarize an RS we engage in OR, but it is an acceptable level of OR for WP's as long as we don't mistate the source. Determining if a source is speaking as fact or as opinion is an acceptable amount of OR, since that's basically the difference of saying "Water is wet" vs "John Smith said water is wet". Further, "Avoid stating facts as opinions" applies to uncontested facts, and that's where knowing what is beyond the RSes come in. We know that GG have repeated countered the claims about their group, so any "facts" about GG that they have countered should be considered opinions, even if there's a possibly that these GG counterstatements are fabrications. Note that we don't have to include the counterstatement aspect, just instead of saying "GG is anti-feminist" that "GG is said to be anti-feminist by the mainstream press." That's it, it's not that difficult to use it that way. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's implicit - to understand if a source makes a statement but does not clarify if the statement is a fact or an opinion in their voice, you have to understand how that statement fits in context of the topic, and that requires understanding the full picture, not just what RSes say. And if it clear that the statement made by the RS is an opinion counter to the larger picture, we should thus attribute as an opinion. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- That piece of policy describes how to handle opinions in reliable sources. It doesn't say anything about using "what is beyond the RSes to understand the larger picture" or coming to a consensus to add in as an opinion what a reliable source states as a fact. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.". --MASEM (t) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which part of NPOV are you citing here? Kaciemonster (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Again, WP:NPOV allows use to determine, as editors via consensus, if an RS stating something as fact really should be stated as opinion. We have that ability to consider what is beyond the RSes to understand the larger picture. So yes, policy does allow for this. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- We are an objective source when we objectively report what the reliable sources have reported. We are an UNobjective source when we start with the premise that the reliable sources for some reason (its a great conspiracy!) are not actually reporting accurately and then try to spin the content to make up for what the gamergaters (well some gamergaters - not those the are sending death and rape threats , cause we know that they are not really gamergaters - but we know which ones are the actual true gamergaters and are going to read their minds) really are about. Ludicrous hogwash counter to EVERY policy of the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- We are an objective source, so we absolutely need to have clarity without judgement of what their stance is, regardless of how "wrong" the predominate POV says that stance is. This doesn't have to be clarity to be repeated in the article (particularly if there's no RSes to work from) but a baseline that editors working on the article understand as to be able to place other content in place around it. Articles may be based primarily on content from RS, but it is extremely important to keep in mind when using those RSes what exists beyond that "garden wall" to write effectively about it; in our case, our breakdown of GG is a novel approach compared to all other sources, but that's our ability as a tertiary sources to look at the big picture and organize and incorporate the best sources to our ability, but that can't be done with ones' head stuck to only the given RSes. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just as there's no need for us to wear tinfoil hats, lend credence to quack medicine and fringe science, or pursue conspiracy theories, there's no particular need for us to
make windows into men’s soulslook beyond whats reported. There is no great media conspiracy theory. I know some editors think they have good sources for the Real Story Of Gamergate, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)- Yes there is. We're a tertiary source. We compile information on a topic. While we can only include RSes into an article, being aware of anything outside the RSes can help with organization, finding potentially new reliable sources or angles on a topic (existing or that might come up) and other factors that make for a good encyclopedia. We can't include those other sources at all, I totally agree with that, but we should not pretend they don't exist for purposes of discussing how to improve the article. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, let's end this. And I know "it's about ethics in game journalism" has become the slogan for gamergate, but I am still a bit taken aback to see a specific, named person accused of ethical indiscretions by "failing to serve...the main gaming audience." Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not to put too fine a point on it, but the site is "Rock, Paper, Shotgun." That being said, I guess it might be argued that it's not really a positive review, but like MarkBernstein, I completely fail to see how it raises any ethical concern whatsoever. Should Depression Quest not be reviewed by anyone whose life has been touched by depression? I also agree that it borders on a BLP issue. Taking a step back, might this entire conversation be better situated at Depression Quest? Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- What “ethical” concern, precisely, does Adam Smith’s short announcement in Rock Paper Scissors raise? And what policy permits us to use this page to publicize that Mr. Smith’s writing raises ethical concerns? I don’t recall seeing a reliable source say that, there’s no reliable source cited above, and since Adam Smith’s photo and biography appear on the masthead page I expect he’s a living person. Adam Smith is the reviews editor of the site, he expressed an opinion, the site published it. That’s how publishing works. I suggest that you rephrase or strike. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Peter is correct, reliable sourcing call the reviews positive. But we should be aware as editors that the review like that of RPS (first link above) is the type of review that triggered the ethical concerns of GG. No, we can't make that statement as no other source explicitly mentions that so it is otherwise OR, but we should be aware of that type of history is involved. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Our job is to reflect reliable sources, not research the claims they make. I suggest you read our policies about original research on WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is very interesting. In the Daily Dot Article NBSB references, the quote reads as follows (notice the embedded links as they were in the original quote): "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression, many gamers saw it differently." If we look at the first "review" linked (rockpapershotgun), there is no review at all. The author admits to have never played the game. The second review is indeed positive, yet the third piece from destructoid is merely a preview/description. The author gives no indication that he ever played the game, much less a review. So we have exactly one source that apparently misinterpreted other sources, and this is the basis for "nearly universal positive reviews"? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this seems to be jumping to conclusions not to mention misleading our readers. Thoughts? Cavalierman (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Aja Romano for the Daily Dot writes "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression..." Phil Savage for PC Gamer writes "Depression Quest is a particularly interesting pick. Developed by Zoe Quinn, it's a moving and revealing insight into what it's like to live with depression." You're welcome. Source: The citations directly after the phrasing you are criticising. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am not seeing where in the references Depression-Quest received "near-universal" positive reviews. As a matter of fact, can anyone provide more than one reliable source that gives DQ a positive review? I am excluding blogs and unreliable sources- I am talking about actual mainstream reviews and critics who received the game positively. I am only finding one. Cavalierman (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This seems extraneous to me. Isn't linking to the game's own entry enough? I don't see how that really affects this article. Dumuzid (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Masem, that is flatly unacceptable. I have no idea what you imagine the universe of true but unverifiable information is about gamergate, but more importantly, neither does any reader. Our core content policies V and OR exist to prevent this sort of thing. What you are proposing is that we write an article holding in mind references that we have no intention of showing the reader. A critical reader must be able to read the text of the article and verify for themselves what is on the page. Every other content policy and guideline flows from that. I get that a lot of discourse exists outside of reliable sources and I get that our guidance on sourcing precludes including some of those (as our BLP policy precludes linking to the Zoe post even though that would improve the readers understanding). But we cannot lie to the readers. If we want to include non reliable sources to give a broader picture, then let's form a consensus and do that. If we can't (and we probably can't), it is misleading to construct an alternate narrative that exists only on the talk page and in the minds of editors. The article has to stand on its own. At this point it isn't even about whether or not this represents special pleading on behalf of a fringe viewpoint (though it is), it's about not abdicating our responsibility to our readers. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have never said we need to include this information, nor can we. I completely agree it is unsourcable and would fail WP:V with lack of RS for it. But this is true information that anyone following the GG situation knows exists, and we similar as editors just need to be aware that there is more to a topic than just was RS give, as to apply WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and other policies appropriately. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- "But this is true information that anyone following the GG situation knows exists " Point to where in the article a prospective reader might learn this fact. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also (and I want this answered separately) how can you justify saying what you said to me and in the same minute saying "We can't include those other sources at all, I totally agree with that, but we should not pretend they don't exist for purposes of discussing how to improve the article." If that isn't going to go into the article at all, then why are we all wasting our time talking about it. If it is going in the article (and it is and has been) then why bother responding with the above? Protonk (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I never said it needed to be in the article, I'm saying that as tertiary editors we know this exists, and knowing this exists outside the bounds of RS can help guide us in writing the article from RSes. Unrelated example: Civilization V on release was well praised, but there was a huge user backlash due to bugs and other factors that one can see via Metacritic user ratings, etc., but nothing from a single RS. Obviously we could not include that in the article, but aware that there was lots of users complaining about bugs, there was one RS review that did score the game rather negatively reflecting on the bugginess, etc. While we could not mention a single thing about users reviews, this RS review was used in lieu of that to show that there was some issues regarding that. Same idea that started this section off: RSes say DQ got critical acclaim, etc. but as the original poster noted, you start looking at the reviews and there's some questions in that, not to mention what other RSes say. Here, there's nothing new we can add but being aware that these type of reviews are exactly in the scope of GG's "objective review" concern may help us to find other sources and describe this better in the future if new RSes come along to help on that. We cannot be so narrow minded on the subject to not even concern what other sources and information say about a topic even if they can't be included, we write better articles when we as editors are aware of the larger picture beyond what policy allows use to document. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Obviously we could not include that in the article, but aware that there was lots of users complaining about bugs, there was one RS review that did score the game rather negatively reflecting on the bugginess, etc. While we could not mention a single thing about users reviews, this RS review was used in lieu of that to show that there was some issues regarding that." Then we failed the readers of the Civ V article. Period. Raising that source to prominence on the basis of hidden information that a critical reader could never verify using the references linked in the article violates V, NPOV and OR. How is this unclear? Protonk (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Arguably, anyone can go to the Metacritic page (which is linked as a reference due to the main reviews) and see hundreds of negative user reviews. The information is not unverifyable, it's just not reliable, which is a different problem. We have one review (from a source that would normally be included in the first place in terms of reviews) and have one line to explain why they gave it a low score that aligned with the user review issue. No pandering was done here because the review was otherwise "in process". --MASEM (t) 18:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- So what's the plan here? That readers lurk on 8chan to learn how it's really about ethics in order to understand why our article is so obtuse? Protonk (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- To make sure that we keep our article non-judgemental, and being aware of what else has been said so that when SPA/IPs come here to complain about the article we can provide what they need to be able to show to include it, as was done at the start of this section, as to be able to work with them instead of chasing them away. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- So what's the plan here? That readers lurk on 8chan to learn how it's really about ethics in order to understand why our article is so obtuse? Protonk (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Arguably, anyone can go to the Metacritic page (which is linked as a reference due to the main reviews) and see hundreds of negative user reviews. The information is not unverifyable, it's just not reliable, which is a different problem. We have one review (from a source that would normally be included in the first place in terms of reviews) and have one line to explain why they gave it a low score that aligned with the user review issue. No pandering was done here because the review was otherwise "in process". --MASEM (t) 18:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Obviously we could not include that in the article, but aware that there was lots of users complaining about bugs, there was one RS review that did score the game rather negatively reflecting on the bugginess, etc. While we could not mention a single thing about users reviews, this RS review was used in lieu of that to show that there was some issues regarding that." Then we failed the readers of the Civ V article. Period. Raising that source to prominence on the basis of hidden information that a critical reader could never verify using the references linked in the article violates V, NPOV and OR. How is this unclear? Protonk (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I never said it needed to be in the article, I'm saying that as tertiary editors we know this exists, and knowing this exists outside the bounds of RS can help guide us in writing the article from RSes. Unrelated example: Civilization V on release was well praised, but there was a huge user backlash due to bugs and other factors that one can see via Metacritic user ratings, etc., but nothing from a single RS. Obviously we could not include that in the article, but aware that there was lots of users complaining about bugs, there was one RS review that did score the game rather negatively reflecting on the bugginess, etc. While we could not mention a single thing about users reviews, this RS review was used in lieu of that to show that there was some issues regarding that. Same idea that started this section off: RSes say DQ got critical acclaim, etc. but as the original poster noted, you start looking at the reviews and there's some questions in that, not to mention what other RSes say. Here, there's nothing new we can add but being aware that these type of reviews are exactly in the scope of GG's "objective review" concern may help us to find other sources and describe this better in the future if new RSes come along to help on that. We cannot be so narrow minded on the subject to not even concern what other sources and information say about a topic even if they can't be included, we write better articles when we as editors are aware of the larger picture beyond what policy allows use to document. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
We've been talking about this for months: We cannot, should not, and will not do original research into the souls and intentions of Gamergaters in order to influence the article. The article reflects the consensus of reliable sources, period. Nor do we need to "work with" the sock puppets and SPA accounts who come here with such regularity in order to rewrite the article so it can promote Gamergate’s harassment campaigns. Wikipedia is not a subsidiary of 8chan. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a good mentality to have to develop a controversial article on an open wiki. We absolutely need to work with SPAs and IPs that come here with honest intentions of trying to improve the article, even if their suggestions are impossible to include. Ignoring what GG is saying about themselves is not an objective attitude here. Yes, we may only be able to include what RSes say, but we can determine how those statements fit into the larger picture better by understanding the full situation, and failure to want to do that is not going to help maintain objectivity, a requirement for WP editors. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, Masem, your contention is that a Wikipedia editor who somehow knew nothing at all about gamergate except what he or she read in the RS would somehow be less objective (per the WP definition)? Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. This article is written in a highly judgemental manner against gamergate in Wikipedia's tone that GG is bad and wrong and evil, and with fairly poor explanation from existing RSes of what GG's side is in all this. It is no question that the predominate opinion is that GG is bad and wrong and evil, but that's an opinion that should be attributed to the press and not in any way stated as fact. Let the reader judge for themselves if GG should be considered wrong or not, we should be simply laying out what the sides have said about their POV, relative to WEIGHT, for this and make no attempt to be critical towards it. This is why we as editors should be fully aware of what GG's claims are even if they aren't in RSes so that we can help use the existing RSes to capture their side better. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Just so we're clear, the plan is to structure and write the article based on sources that we cannot show the reader (and in many cases cannot even post on the talk page or discuss in detail) so that we can more fully accommodate a fringe viewpoint? Protonk (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes we should. In the past I presented a version of the article that added no new sources, but simply ordered the material in a manner to make it very clear what the GG side was about, separate from the harassment and feminist issues; I could do that because I was aware of what the finer details of GG were and thus could organize the existing information better without any major wording changes. Given that they might be fringe but they represent one side of a two-sided argument, this seems to be an extremely objective step to improving the article. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's unacceptable. Completely. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is unacceptable of a objective, neutral encyclopedia not to consider what is beyond the reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Does anyone in this thread agree with your interpretation of our policies? Protonk (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- If that were true, don't you think some policy or guideline somewhere would state that? Explicitly that? Because we sure do spend a lot of time explaining why we use reliable sources. Seems like a pretty big oversight. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see the concept implicitly to support policy, and used throughout other less controversial areas (such as at ITN), but yes, it is not documented which is disconcerting. Because this is a rather key issue, and goes into policy beyond just how it applies to GG, I am asking this over at NPOV, over here: [3] And if it is the case that we can't go and consider non-RS external sources in crafting an article, I will shut up about that in the future. But we need more opinions on this as policy, hence asking there. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am fairly sure that what Masem is describing (advocating for us to completely ignore policy specifically for this article because it is 'judgemental ... against gamergate') is not acceptable, especially for an administrator. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Policy is not absolute , this is why WP:IAR exists. Further, as long as I do not use admin privileges to enforce my take on policy without the backing of consensus, that's an absolute none issue and approaching a personal attack. Talk page discussion is healthy and appropriate per the ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- really Masem? What exactly is the improvement to the encyclopedia by tossing all of the content polices out the window to present GG from a view that is not supported by any reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Policy is not absolute , this is why WP:IAR exists. Further, as long as I do not use admin privileges to enforce my take on policy without the backing of consensus, that's an absolute none issue and approaching a personal attack. Talk page discussion is healthy and appropriate per the ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am fairly sure that what Masem is describing (advocating for us to completely ignore policy specifically for this article because it is 'judgemental ... against gamergate') is not acceptable, especially for an administrator. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see the concept implicitly to support policy, and used throughout other less controversial areas (such as at ITN), but yes, it is not documented which is disconcerting. Because this is a rather key issue, and goes into policy beyond just how it applies to GG, I am asking this over at NPOV, over here: [3] And if it is the case that we can't go and consider non-RS external sources in crafting an article, I will shut up about that in the future. But we need more opinions on this as policy, hence asking there. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is unacceptable of a objective, neutral encyclopedia not to consider what is beyond the reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's unacceptable. Completely. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes we should. In the past I presented a version of the article that added no new sources, but simply ordered the material in a manner to make it very clear what the GG side was about, separate from the harassment and feminist issues; I could do that because I was aware of what the finer details of GG were and thus could organize the existing information better without any major wording changes. Given that they might be fringe but they represent one side of a two-sided argument, this seems to be an extremely objective step to improving the article. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, Masem, your contention is that a Wikipedia editor who somehow knew nothing at all about gamergate except what he or she read in the RS would somehow be less objective (per the WP definition)? Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is a productive line of discussion. Let's try and focus on the policy questions at hand. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Really?
This talk page is for suggesting and discussing specific improvements to the article, not WP:HORSEMEAT conversations about bias. Yes, really. drseudo (t) 20:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
" It garnered significant public attention after August 2014, when several women within the video game industry, including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu and feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks." or "In the wake of these canards, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign." or "Gamergate supporters attacked other victims with harassment, doxing, and death threats. Those who came to their defense were labelled by Gamergate supporters as "white knights", or "social justice warriors"." Really? These are just a few of many lines that are incredibly biased. This is the most biased article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I think that at this point that this article needs to be completely rewritten. Theawesome67 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC) The three sentences you call out above are all amply supported by the preponderance of the reliable sources. Do you have a specific suggestion to improve the article that accords with core wikipedia policies, including WP:RS and WP:UNDUE? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC) |
'Response from gaming journalism sites' section
I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but it was archived with little discussion, so I figure I should rehash my reasoning here. The problem with this section is that (as far as I can tell) it relies entirely on primary sources. While we can cite them in some situations, it's clear that in context, it's citing them in order to try and make an argument (that these responses are meaningful, significant; that they represent the industry either successfully fixing itself or reacting to real problems, depending on your point of view, and so on.) That violates WP:OR. If we are going to cover those responses (and I'm not sure they're notworthy enough to include), I think it's important that we cite it to reliable mainstream sources attesting to their significance, not just to blog posts from site owners saying "hey yeah we heard there was some social media controversy, so we're putting out a statement." --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. The sites are reliable sources, and primary sources are allowed when used to explain the positions of the people involved. I don't think it's WP:OR to say it's an industry response when each source explicitly says they're responding to the events. I'd like that section to be reinstated. It's been there for months without a problem, and it has previously been discussed and revised. I'd say that indicates at least some consensus to keep it. —Torchiest talkedits 12:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly it just seems like undue weight- no secondary sources reported on the statements and they had no impact whatsoever. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can't see how it's undue weight when gaming journalism websites responded to the purported goals of the group by drawing attention to existing ethics policies or writing up new ones. Outside of that, though, this source (a reliable source already used in the article) reported on the ethics policy updates. —Torchiest talkedits 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can see a sentence mentioning this stuff, but an entire section certainly seems undue to me. Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- A sentence, just listing the sites w/o details, is fine, definitely don't need the section. But the changes do need to be mentioned as the reason.com article points out that this was in reaction to GG. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Four websites wrote pieces specifically talking about their responses to the accusations re: ethics violations. They're secondary sources with regard to the event, and reliable primary sources for describing their own actions. At least one other reliable secondary source reported on this events. An industry response section only makes sense to give a full picture of the events that transpired. —Torchiest talkedits 14:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I find that I agree with -MASEM: a sentence acknowledging that some Web sites responded to Gamergate accusations by explaining or modifying their policies might not be inappropriate. A section is WP:UNDUE for such minor responses. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- +1 to Masem's suggestion here. 1-2 sentences seems appropriate. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can see a sentence mentioning this stuff, but an entire section certainly seems undue to me. Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can't see how it's undue weight when gaming journalism websites responded to the purported goals of the group by drawing attention to existing ethics policies or writing up new ones. Outside of that, though, this source (a reliable source already used in the article) reported on the ethics policy updates. —Torchiest talkedits 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly it just seems like undue weight- no secondary sources reported on the statements and they had no impact whatsoever. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Bomb threat at GG organized meetup
[4]. We have a paragraph that this can be added to already regarding the threats GG supporters say they've gotten. However, I want to be careful with the language because as the article carefully notes, the only official reason the meetup was abruptly ended was the bar claiming it was a fire drill; the presence of police and the twitter thread are supposition evidence that something else was going on. But this was GG's first official meetup organized by Christina Hoff Summers and Milo Y., so this definitely should merit a one-sentence addition. (I would like to see additional sources to confirm how the police state this). --MASEM (t) 21:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- By itself it isn't actually anything at the moment. At best the source is a citation that Hoff Sommers and Milo are ostensibly organisers, but everything else is very vague. Wait for a more complete source with some actual verified content, otherwise this is just hearsay. Koncorde (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- (e/c)This seems to be the most actively that Sommers has indicated her affiliation with GG. In the past it has always been sympathetic but highly veiled allusions to the LW and a full throated "Those feminazis are bad bad bad for trying to take the games away from the boys." but i had never seen any actual support for gg. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Let's give this one some time. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Kotaku just covered it. I think its worthy of mention. A ton of articles have mentioned it already. http://kotaku.com/gamergate-meetup-evacuated-after-apparent-threat-1701761645 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor3 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- The article you gave was already linked by Masem. We're wondering if this is enough to build an inclusion on (in my humble opinion it's really not for now). PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- As noted above, the only affirmed fact we have is that the meetup was terminated early due to a reported fire drill. There does exist that tweet and there does exist the police presence but we have no idea if these are connected yet. Even if they were, where your addition in the lead was the wrong place as this would be taken as harassment towards GG supporters, not what GG is claimed to have done. (Unless at the end of the day, it was shown as GGs negatively attacking their own but there's no evidence of that now). --MASEM (t) 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is harassing, no threatening GG Supporters.
We should make this article less biased
This talk page is for suggesting and discussing specific improvements to the article, not WP:HORSEMEAT conversations about bias. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Its quite apparent that this article is very biased towards the likes of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian and does not show both sides of the story. We should make it told from both sides of the story. Destructor3 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC) |