TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
:::See [[WP:HORSEMEAT]]. At some point, all there has to be said has been said unless there are new sources to be discussed or a compelling new argument (e.g. Not 'this biased fix please'). [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
:::See [[WP:HORSEMEAT]]. At some point, all there has to be said has been said unless there are new sources to be discussed or a compelling new argument (e.g. Not 'this biased fix please'). [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::This constant hatting practice is in direct opposition to a host of best practices, including [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:BITE]], [[WP:RTP]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. I understand that this article is under discretionary sanctions, but I'm missing the part of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Sanctions_available sanctions] that endorses or encourages the hatting of discussion from new editors. It should also be noted that [[WP:HORSEMEAT]] is an essay, and I don't think it should ever be used to close a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate_controversy&type=revision&diff=660529674&oldid=660529504 two-minute-old discussion] on a talk page. Nor does a supposed violation of [[WP:FORUM]] or [[WP:EXHAUST]] warrant an immediate hatting. Lastly, I would advise that you take some time to actually read [[Template:Hidden archive top]]. It might help to read it aloud. Here is the relevant quote: "This template '''should only be used by uninvolved editors''' in conjunction with the [[Wikipedia:talk page guidelines|talk page guidelines]] and relevant advice at [[wp:refactoring|refactoring]]. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." Now read it again and focus on that last sentence. If an editor new to the talk page brings up a previously-discussed topic, point them to the relevant discussion or RFC (for example: [[Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1]] is a great RFC with a fantastic, balanced response from the closing admin) and move on. It can't be that difficult, can it? Certainly it's no more difficult than hatting every new editor's contribution to the talk page and telling them that they managed to beat a horse to death in two minutes. [[User:ColorOfSuffering|ColorOfSuffering]] ([[User talk:ColorOfSuffering|talk]]) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
::::This constant hatting practice is in direct opposition to a host of best practices, including [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:BITE]], [[WP:RTP]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. I understand that this article is under discretionary sanctions, but I'm missing the part of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Sanctions_available sanctions] that endorses or encourages the hatting of discussion from new editors. It should also be noted that [[WP:HORSEMEAT]] is an essay, and I don't think it should ever be used to close a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate_controversy&type=revision&diff=660529674&oldid=660529504 two-minute-old discussion] on a talk page. Nor does a supposed violation of [[WP:FORUM]] or [[WP:EXHAUST]] warrant an immediate hatting. Lastly, I would advise that you take some time to actually read [[Template:Hidden archive top]]. It might help to read it aloud. Here is the relevant quote: "This template '''should only be used by uninvolved editors''' in conjunction with the [[Wikipedia:talk page guidelines|talk page guidelines]] and relevant advice at [[wp:refactoring|refactoring]]. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." Now read it again and focus on that last sentence. If an editor new to the talk page brings up a previously-discussed topic, point them to the relevant discussion or RFC (for example: [[Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1]] is a great RFC with a fantastic, balanced response from the closing admin) and move on. It can't be that difficult, can it? Certainly it's no more difficult than hatting every new editor's contribution to the talk page and telling them that they managed to beat a horse to death in two minutes. [[User:ColorOfSuffering|ColorOfSuffering]] ([[User talk:ColorOfSuffering|talk]]) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::the <big><big>big>THIRTY FUCKING SIX pages of archives</big></big><big> are more than enough evidence that what the page DOES NOT NEED is more rehashing of the same baseless position. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::As we have discussed extensively, these topics have been introduced and re-introduced by new (or, typically, “new”) editors, often at two-week intervals and leading to protracted and unproductive rehashing of settled questions. A number of the frequent topics invite BLP violations, typically prurient sexual information or other unfounded allegations about Gamergate targets. '''A million words''' have been spent, exhausting the most dedicated volunteers. That is the point of these constantly repeated rehashed arguments, of course, and the reason they are so carefully coordinated offsite: to fill the talk page with Gamergate talking points and to use it to broadcast innuendo about Gamergate victims, which is to say Wikipedia's victims. The hatting has been explicitly sanctioned at AE; it would not be best practice elsewhere, perhaps, but it ''is'' best practice, and very necessary, here.. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
:::As we have discussed extensively, these topics have been introduced and re-introduced by new (or, typically, “new”) editors, often at two-week intervals and leading to protracted and unproductive rehashing of settled questions. A number of the frequent topics invite BLP violations, typically prurient sexual information or other unfounded allegations about Gamergate targets. '''A million words''' have been spent, exhausting the most dedicated volunteers. That is the point of these constantly repeated rehashed arguments, of course, and the reason they are so carefully coordinated offsite: to fill the talk page with Gamergate talking points and to use it to broadcast innuendo about Gamergate victims, which is to say Wikipedia's victims. The hatting has been explicitly sanctioned at AE; it would not be best practice elsewhere, perhaps, but it ''is'' best practice, and very necessary, here.. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 01:30, 5 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.
'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
[1]. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor3 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Again, even as the Kotaku article points out, the only thing that can be confirmed is that the bar the GG meetup was at had stated there was a fire drill and had everyone evacuate. The presence of the police outside is odd, and tied with the bomb threat via twitter, certainly speaks to a possibly different reason the fire drill was used. But we cannot connect these as being harassment towards GG yet, it's speculation we can't yet make, and the only real story is that a meeting was ended by a fire drill. Give it a day or so as more might come out. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that Tweets weren't accepted as reliable sources. Or has that changed? Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- This tweet is currently sourced in the article. I would have to say this has indeed changed. If they're reliable regarding GGInDC, why not use 'em? Camarouge (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Twitter, like Tumblr and Facebook, can fall under the lines of WP:SELFSOURCE. They could work here. One tweet from FemFreq's account is already here. GamerPro64 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that Tweets weren't accepted as reliable sources. Or has that changed? Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Again, even as the Kotaku article points out, the only thing that can be confirmed is that the bar the GG meetup was at had stated there was a fire drill and had everyone evacuate. The presence of the police outside is odd, and tied with the bomb threat via twitter, certainly speaks to a possibly different reason the fire drill was used. But we cannot connect these as being harassment towards GG yet, it's speculation we can't yet make, and the only real story is that a meeting was ended by a fire drill. Give it a day or so as more might come out. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is harassing, no threatening GG Supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor3 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's an article from Destructoid. #GamerGate get-together sabotaged by threats. GamerPro64 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Now there's an article about it on Polygon. This could be enough to actually put this info into the article. Bomb threat clears out GamerGate gathering in Washington D.C. GamerPro64 19:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
[2] Please check this addition just to make sure. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Another article written by Cathy Young, who was at the event. —Torchiest talkedits 14:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
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) |
This talk page is for any and all discussion on the topic of article improvement. This contribution from User:PeterTheFourth should not have been closed and so I will open it again after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Chris! This contribution was from Destructor3, not me. I closed it because the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not complaints about bias. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- All such complaints about bias are article-improvement talk page contributions. Chrisrus (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:HORSEMEAT. At some point, all there has to be said has been said unless there are new sources to be discussed or a compelling new argument (e.g. Not 'this biased fix please'). PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- This constant hatting practice is in direct opposition to a host of best practices, including WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:RTP and WP:CIVIL. I understand that this article is under discretionary sanctions, but I'm missing the part of the sanctions that endorses or encourages the hatting of discussion from new editors. It should also be noted that WP:HORSEMEAT is an essay, and I don't think it should ever be used to close a two-minute-old discussion on a talk page. Nor does a supposed violation of WP:FORUM or WP:EXHAUST warrant an immediate hatting. Lastly, I would advise that you take some time to actually read Template:Hidden archive top. It might help to read it aloud. Here is the relevant quote: "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." Now read it again and focus on that last sentence. If an editor new to the talk page brings up a previously-discussed topic, point them to the relevant discussion or RFC (for example: Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1 is a great RFC with a fantastic, balanced response from the closing admin) and move on. It can't be that difficult, can it? Certainly it's no more difficult than hatting every new editor's contribution to the talk page and telling them that they managed to beat a horse to death in two minutes. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- the big>THIRTY FUCKING SIX pages of archives are more than enough evidence that what the page DOES NOT NEED is more rehashing of the same baseless position. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- As we have discussed extensively, these topics have been introduced and re-introduced by new (or, typically, “new”) editors, often at two-week intervals and leading to protracted and unproductive rehashing of settled questions. A number of the frequent topics invite BLP violations, typically prurient sexual information or other unfounded allegations about Gamergate targets. A million words have been spent, exhausting the most dedicated volunteers. That is the point of these constantly repeated rehashed arguments, of course, and the reason they are so carefully coordinated offsite: to fill the talk page with Gamergate talking points and to use it to broadcast innuendo about Gamergate victims, which is to say Wikipedia's victims. The hatting has been explicitly sanctioned at AE; it would not be best practice elsewhere, perhaps, but it is best practice, and very necessary, here.. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:HORSEMEAT. At some point, all there has to be said has been said unless there are new sources to be discussed or a compelling new argument (e.g. Not 'this biased fix please'). PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- All such complaints about bias are article-improvement talk page contributions. Chrisrus (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is time for a new question for the FAQ at the top of this page? Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Different question than Q2: "Why is Wikipedia preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other?" ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is time for a new question for the FAQ at the top of this page? Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
What gamergate is about
This is not a forum for discussing what Gamergate is about. Comments should be focused on suggestions for how to improve the article. Make sure to support those suggestions with reliable sources.Bosstopher (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
GamerGate is not about sexism. It is about corruption in journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor3 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC) |
Lede needs rewrite
Unless a slew of reliable sources published in the last few days contradicts the masses of reliable sources accumulated over the past months, there is nothing here to discuss, again. And again. And again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Given "One concern is that Internet trolls intending to stir up conflict are responsible for many of the threats attributed to Gamergate.[66][67][70] Writing for Vox, Todd VanDerWerff wrote that the Gamergate supporters' "actually interesting concerns" were being "warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women."[32]", and "The BBC reported "that misogynist abuse—and vitriolic messages in general—is not limited to either 'side' of the argument," noting that Allum Bokhari, a writer for TechCrunch, said a trolling group was "working to provoke both sides against each other".[70]" and the references to people in Gamergate being harassed and the recent bomb threat the lede should be rewritten to reflect that not only have harassment and attacks been suffered by both supporters and opponents to Gamergate, but also that it's suspected that third party trolls are responsible for the harassment. Mythiran (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
|
- Any discussion of article improvement should be allowed on this talk page. Do not close such threads. Please re-open this thread in a timely manner. Chrisrus (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your comment is clearly biased and lacks citations. Please improve it. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Citations are not required on talk pages.
- There is no apparent bias in the statement "Any discussion of article improvement should be allowed on this talk page. Do not close such threads. Please re-open this thread in a timely manner."
- Therefore, this is not a substantive reply, so I am free to reopen this thread as soon as appropriate on the grounds that the topic of the thread is article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- By all means, please be bold, but pay mind to WP policies. I only meant to reference the recurrent nature of issues on this page. Dumuzid (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- PetertheFourth, MarkBernstein, and TheRedPenofDoom's responses are basically as far as this conversation can go unless Mythiran has enough reliable sources on the topic to indicate that the harassment against GG supporters deserves more weight in the article. Adding it to the lede now would be undue weight. If Mythiran has actionable changes to suggest for the article, they can start a new section to discuss those changes, but there is no more discussion to be had here. Kaciemonster (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your comment is clearly biased and lacks citations. Please improve it. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Any discussion of article improvement should be allowed on this talk page. Do not close such threads. Please re-open this thread in a timely manner. Chrisrus (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Image for Brianna Wu
Hi! There are two images of Brianna Wu at our article for her (one specifically focusing on her) that are of higher quality than the image we currently use for her in the article. Should we use one of those instead? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- On a similar note- replace the image we have of Anita Sarkeesian? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)