→No mention of the controversy?: ce and link |
|||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
::::::* Zoe's own blog is an acceptable source for her response on the incident. However, it's not an acceptable indicator of the notability of the incident as it's not a third-party source. Until other reliable sources make it notable enough for inclusion, Zoe's reply is unusable. |
::::::* Zoe's own blog is an acceptable source for her response on the incident. However, it's not an acceptable indicator of the notability of the incident as it's not a third-party source. Until other reliable sources make it notable enough for inclusion, Zoe's reply is unusable. |
||
::::::[[User:VDZ|VDZ]] ([[User talk:VDZ|talk]]) 20:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
::::::[[User:VDZ|VDZ]] ([[User talk:VDZ|talk]]) 20:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::: {{tq|Though it looks professional enough, Gamer Headlines is not a notable site. It's been around for less than a year and as far as I can tell its existence hasn't even been mentioned by notable sites or people.}} How would you say that? It appears to have [http://www.gamerheadlines.com/jobs/ editorial control over their own content,]] and it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamerheadlines.com%2F is used by other articles as well]. I would say that it's a reliable but biased source for the instance. In addition, just because something 'looks' like it might not be a reliable site or of the sort does ''not'' make it not a reliable source. Its existence does not need to be mentioned by notable sites or other people, where are you getting that from? In essence, I would like to ask specifically what parts of the website makes you think it's -not- a reliable source per [[WP:RS]]? [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 21: |
::::::: {{tq|Though it looks professional enough, Gamer Headlines is not a notable site. It's been around for less than a year and as far as I can tell its existence hasn't even been mentioned by notable sites or people.}} How would you say that? It appears to have [http://www.gamerheadlines.com/jobs/ editorial control over their own content,]] and it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamerheadlines.com%2F is used by other articles as well]. I would say that it's a reliable but biased source for the instance. In addition, just because something 'looks' like it might not be a reliable site or of the sort does ''not'' make it not a reliable source. Its existence does not need to be mentioned by notable sites or other people, where are you getting that from? In essence, I would like to ask specifically what parts of the website makes you think it's -not- a reliable source per [[WP:RS]]? I'd like to comment on the boyfriend's blog as well. {{tq|thezoepost is a blog written by an ex-boyfriend with an agenda (revenge for being treated like shit). Blogs (except under some special circumstances, when written by notable people specifically on a notable subject) are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The blog's complete lack of neutrality further makes it unreliable.}} We do not exempt sources from being [[WP:BIASED|biased]], we may exempt them for other reasons but being biased is not one of them. For example, in this case, since it's a BLP, there should be better sources than blogs and that might be a legitimate reason to omit. But ''not'' for simply being biased do we exclude sources. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 21:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Agreed on all points. We need some reliable third parties discussing it or there's no indication of importance. This isn't a gossip magazine or a tabloid. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::Agreed on all points. We need some reliable third parties discussing it or there's no indication of importance. This isn't a gossip magazine or a tabloid. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:05, 19 August 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Quinn was the center of a large media controversy within the video game industry, focused on misogyny within the industry, due to the harassment she faced. As part of a larger discussion about misogyny within the video game industry, Quinn is one of the defining resistant female figures.
How could the page be edited in order to convey this importance?
- Generally people who are only involved in single events do not meet the criteria for biographies of living people. You are welcome to read over them. Zeus t | u | c 19:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Why hasn't this wiki been deleted yet? Even JonTron's wiki keeps getting deleted and he's much bigger than her. 8:08 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.48.114 (talk)
- What, you want to delete the whole of Wikipedia? ;) Joking aside, your answer is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Quinn. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because:
I've added additional details to show her importance. Besides her role in Depression Quest and the subsequent harassment, she:
1) produced the first Twine game released on Steam
2) took part in the failed YouTube indie game developer game_jam reality tv show
3) created the Game Developer Help List to bring together veteran and novice game developers
Hopefully this provides sufficient evidence of her importance, particularly to the indie video game community!
Thank you,
--ShaunEdmonds (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unprofessional conduct
I would go as far as to say, if we can talk about it on Bill Clinton's page, we can post it here? It's relevant controversy, and goes further than defamation.
Zoe Quinn's Lewinsky Scandal [1]
24.170.47.108 (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Completely agree. If people think this page is such of valid importance, her notorious cheating scandal should at least be mentioned. It was all over reddit when it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.206.96.149 (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fifth. I logged in to do it myself, to override the lock, but I would rather that the very public information be handled in a way that reflects more consensis.
- "The Link." http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/ The Zone Post. Artoftransformation (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree. To publish information on Wikipedia, that info can't merely be high-profile in an online self-publishing community. It must also be covered by a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia policy states: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." For non-scholarly examples of these sources, it lists: "university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers, [and] electronic media, subject to the same criteria." In other words, even if the whole planet is buzzing excitedly about something that allegedly or actually happened, that info can't go on Wikipedia until a reputable outlet reports on it. That may seem like an unfair or limiting restriction, especially if you perceive an event or rumor as very notable, but it keeps the quality of accuracy of Wikipedia much higher. The website "thezoepost" is not a secondary source, it's primary, it's not from a reliable outlet, and it's self-published. So even if the content is very interesting or widely disseminated, it's not usable. A bigger outlet has to cover it. 75.119.242.175 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- This. The places covering this do not count as reliable per Wikipedia's rules, so we can't use them to source the article. And even if this did somehow appear in more reliable sources, we would have to be very careful about how, and if, we covered it. That is because Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy forbids editors from passing on gossip. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- 100% agree! Either the Article is important because of this and it gets included, or the article is not important and gets deleted! Without details about the corruption scandal in the gaming journalism industry she has part in, the article lacks importance! Anybody (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Anybody: We've had this discussion already, and the article was kept - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Quinn. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014
Here is a reference link for the Controversy subsection:
Wirtanen, Josh (17 August 2014). "Phil Fish Goes on Epic Twitter Crusade to Defend Zoe Quinn". Retrieved 17 August 2014.
I think the Controversy subsection should be rewritten to be more neutral, i.e.:
In August 2014, an ex-boyfriend alleged that Zoe Quinn had had affairs with various video game journalists, developers, and content creators. His blog post led to an online controversyWirtanen, Josh (17 August 2014). "Phil Fish Goes on Epic Twitter Crusade to Defend Zoe Quinn". Retrieved 17 August 2014. and suspicion that impropriety was involved in Depression Quest's presence in gaming publications. One alleged sexual partner writes articles for Kotaku, a site which devoted significant attention to Depression Quest. Another of her sexual partners was alleged to be her married employer, who had also achieved some success within the gaming community. There was speculation about Zoe's methods for promoting herself, her games, and her career: online communities began to accuse her of manipulating the media by falsely representing herself as a victim of online harassment, presumably to draw attention to, and support for, her work.
Willhesucceed (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: We're not here to repeat gossip - see WP:BLPGOSSIP. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
"In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn was the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." By your same logic, this too is gossip and should be removed. Articles that cite twitter as references, and a complete lack of evidence make this statement gossip. Don't try and fool anyone, you simply are burying anything that can be construed as negative by abusing rules, and ignoring cases that make the subject look positive. Your obvious conflict of interests makes you an editor who abuses his position to censor information he finds unappealing.73.32.61.213 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Let's say for a minute that 100% that you were right, it was faked entirely and it was an all an elaborative marketing ploy...Wikipedia doesn't publish original thought, and we stick to what the sources say. The reason on why it would be in the article is that there are reliable sources documenting it. I invite you to find some reliable sources for the counter view point, if there are any, for any possibility of adding/omitting anything from the article. Tutelary (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, the harassment was documented in reputable, edited sources. The infidelity claims weren't. That's really all that there is to it. Euchrid (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Your "reputable edited sources" are exclusively links to Zoe Quinn's twitter account. Seriously, click the [2] and [3] button on the bottom of the main article, and find one hyperlink that IS NOT Zoe Quinn's official twitter page. What you are saying is Zoe Quinn's official twitter page is a reputable source for what goes on Zoe Quinn's wikipedia page. What a joke. http://kc-vidya-rants.tumblr.com/post/95004433478/zoe-quinns-kotaku-staff-cheating-scandal-and-how-she http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx Not considered reliable under wikipedia standards, but they sure as hell aren't just twitter screencaps. 73.32.61.213 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- We allow journalists who publish in reliable sources to make the judgement of whether a subject's Twitter account is a reasonable and trustworthy source for their stories. We don't allow Wikipedia editors to do the same thing. Why the difference? Because the reliable sources have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, but there is no such system in place for Wikipedia editors. And if the reliable sources don't have such good reputations for fact-checking? They aren't so reliable, and maybe we shouldn't be using them. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - particularly the section on news organisations - to see the criteria we normally apply to sources. We can always review the use of specific sources here or at WP:RS/N. If there is a source you think is dubious, please list the source here, along with the statement you don't think it is reliable for, and we can take a look. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- The article doesn't cite Twitter directly, it cites The Mary Sue and The Escapist, both of which easily pass the criteria for reputable sources. THEY draw from Twitter, it's true, but as they've made the judgement that the information is significant, we should include it. WP doesn't determine what information is significant, or which information is 'true' - we reflect what appears in reputable sources. Euchrid (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"Alleged"
I don't want this to become an edit war, but the word 'alleged' is inappropriate when describing Quinn's harassment. At WP we follow the sources, we don't provide our own editorials or commentary. Both reputable sources - The Mary Sue and The Escapist - indicate that what happened was harassment, and our article needs to reflect that. It's not up to editors to determine what really happened. If there are any reliable sources that suggest that it didn't, or that reports were overinflated, then that information can be added as well. Until then, the word 'alleged' has no place. Euchrid (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't have put it better myself. If anyone wants to read the Wikipedia policy behind this - and it will make things a lot easier for all the new users here if you do - you can find it at Wikipedia:No original research. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- For anyone who IS interested in reading up on policy, in addition to the Original Research article, it's worth bearing in mind that it needs to be interpreted particularly strictly when, as in this case, the article is a biography of a living person. Anything which could possibly be seen as being insulting or defamatory needs to be very well sourced, and to not say or imply anything that does not appear in the source article. Euchrid (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- So, if The Mary Sue and The Escapist were to report that Zoe Quinn was from outer space, and the only source they were to cite was Quinn's personal Twitter account, would her Wikipedia article have to state that she was from outer space as though it were a fact? Why should Wikipedia be limited to the bad reporting of The Mary Sue and The Escapist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephf5 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sometimes sources do make factual errors, of course. For that, we have WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT. Neither of those policies seem to be relevant here, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I support this as well, for the same reasons given by Stradivarious and Eurchrid. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sometimes sources do make factual errors, of course. For that, we have WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT. Neither of those policies seem to be relevant here, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
News about how did Zoe Quinn got there:
Is this true? I need clarification.
- What is it exactly that you're asking? Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Past Modelling Career
The article lacks information of her modelling career as an alternative model.
She modelled for Deviant Nation and for Broken Dollz under the name Locke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.64.110 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide a reliable source that covers this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Easy. Her Brokendollz profile is still up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.64.110 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- If its not documented by any third party reliable sources, it probably doesn't warrant any mention on the page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Easy. Her Brokendollz profile is still up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.64.110 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No mention of the controversy?
The article currently doesn't mention anything about the current controversy relating to the "thezoepost". Why? Is it because no one has gone ahead to write about it or are editors going against WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTABILITY? [Soffredo] 16:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- You need reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- And its regarding a real person, so the sources need to adhere to the stricter WP:BLP standards as well. So far, the sourcing isn't even meeting bare bones WP:RS standards, let alone that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like all we have for now is this. Not sure we'll get more coverage since the news is against gaming journalism. [Soffredo] 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Zoe Quinn has also made a post about it on her own Tumblr. [Soffredo] 18:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- The first source doesn't look like an RS, and the second is basically her saying she's not going to delve into the details. Not sure what you'd use it towards. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, with these sources, we could already try to include the event in her article. There's no point in pretending all of this isn't happening.
- The first source doesn't look like an RS, and the second is basically her saying she's not going to delve into the details. Not sure what you'd use it towards. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Zoe Quinn has also made a post about it on her own Tumblr. [Soffredo] 18:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thoughts? [Soffredo] 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there! It's discussed upthread [[2]]. But basically, we aren't trying to pretend it isn't happening - the issue is that Wikipedia policy is really strict about what kinds of sources we're allowed to mine for content, especially when the article is about a person. So far, the existing sources simply don't meet Wikipedia's standards. It's one of the hard things about being a Wikipedia editor: our job isn't to write the truth (or what we think is the truth). Our job is only to present an accurate synthesis of what scholars and reporters and journalists and major media outlets say is the truth. Often that means we can only cover something very late in the game, and sometimes not at all. 173.239.141.98 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thoughts? [Soffredo] 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Though WP:V no longer states it like that (unfortunately), it's still pretty close to that idea. No matter how 'true' something may be, it cannot automatically be included in Wikipedia just because it's true. Rather, Wikipedia collects information from reliable sources and reflects what is stated in those sources - regardless of whether or not Wikipedians find it true or not. (Instead, the consensus among sources is described as the main view, with other notable views represented as such.) In other words, if all sources mentioning the moon landing were to conspire to say there is indisputable proof the moon landing was faked from tomorrow on, then henceforth the Wikipedia article on it will state the moon landing is faked; we go by what the reliable sources say unless we have reliable sources saying otherwise. In a situation like this scandal, if all notable gaming sites refuse to even mention it, we have no reliable sources to work with and can't include it in the article. To point out what the problems are with your current sources:
- thezoepost is a blog written by an ex-boyfriend with an agenda (revenge for being treated like shit). Blogs (except under some special circumstances, when written by notable people specifically on a notable subject) are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The blog's complete lack of neutrality further makes it unreliable.
- Though it looks professional enough, Gamer Headlines is not a notable site. It's been around for less than a year and as far as I can tell its existence hasn't even been mentioned by notable sites or people.
- Zoe's own blog is an acceptable source for her response on the incident. However, it's not an acceptable indicator of the notability of the incident as it's not a third-party source. Until other reliable sources make it notable enough for inclusion, Zoe's reply is unusable.
- VDZ (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Though it looks professional enough, Gamer Headlines is not a notable site. It's been around for less than a year and as far as I can tell its existence hasn't even been mentioned by notable sites or people.
How would you say that? It appears to have editorial control over their own content,] and it is used by other articles as well. I would say that it's a reliable but biased source for the instance. In addition, just because something 'looks' like it might not be a reliable site or of the sort does not make it not a reliable source. Its existence does not need to be mentioned by notable sites or other people, where are you getting that from? In essence, I would like to ask specifically what parts of the website makes you think it's -not- a reliable source per WP:RS? I'd like to comment on the boyfriend's blog as well.thezoepost is a blog written by an ex-boyfriend with an agenda (revenge for being treated like shit). Blogs (except under some special circumstances, when written by notable people specifically on a notable subject) are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The blog's complete lack of neutrality further makes it unreliable.
We do not exempt sources from being biased, we may exempt them for other reasons but being biased is not one of them. For example, in this case, since it's a BLP, there should be better sources than blogs and that might be a legitimate reason to omit. But not for simply being biased do we exclude sources. Tutelary (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)- Agreed on all points. We need some reliable third parties discussing it or there's no indication of importance. This isn't a gossip magazine or a tabloid. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Though WP:V no longer states it like that (unfortunately), it's still pretty close to that idea. No matter how 'true' something may be, it cannot automatically be included in Wikipedia just because it's true. Rather, Wikipedia collects information from reliable sources and reflects what is stated in those sources - regardless of whether or not Wikipedians find it true or not. (Instead, the consensus among sources is described as the main view, with other notable views represented as such.) In other words, if all sources mentioning the moon landing were to conspire to say there is indisputable proof the moon landing was faked from tomorrow on, then henceforth the Wikipedia article on it will state the moon landing is faked; we go by what the reliable sources say unless we have reliable sources saying otherwise. In a situation like this scandal, if all notable gaming sites refuse to even mention it, we have no reliable sources to work with and can't include it in the article. To point out what the problems are with your current sources:
References
Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Zoe has recently been accused of a matter which infringes the entire gaming journalism field. This speedy deletion would inhibit this important fact being added to the article
- The article has -already been- speedied and prodded and afded (articles for deletion, a discussion with the community on whether to keep an article) and has been kept in every single one of them. People trying to delete or speedy this article I wouldn't say are trying to 'censor' or 'inhibit' the information. They're just taking personal conflicts into Wikipedia without knowing the background facts. Tutelary (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014
She is caught up in a scandal in which it has come to light that she performed sexual favors for many high-level game reviewers for favorable reviews. All of this information came to light thru Reddit and mods are deleting all posts related to the incident, including removing posts which do not break the Terms of Service. Many have called for the resignation of the moderators for sensoring free speech. She also attempted to play the victim by releasing fake "DOXX" information herself, or information that can lead to disclosure of where a victim lives, telephone numbers, and much more. Mikex166 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)