Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

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.

Lead length and tagging

The article was recently given a "lead too long" tag and then shortly de-tagged. I have no doubt that both were good faith edits, but it gives me a chance to sing my same old tune, so I will! I definitely think the lead here is too long. While I think all the information belongs in the article, I think the lead could be condensed down to a paragraph or two. I tried drafting such a lead some time ago and was summarily (though courteously) shot down. Just throwing this against the wall again, though I am aware I am not likely to have anything near consensus. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Entire article remains terrible. No constructive edits are likely while it is under such extraordinary measures. Have raised it several times, and inevitably it returns to the status quo with persistent drift in the direction of accruing more dross. Koncorde (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with both above comments. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is entirely happy with everything in this article. I've been staring at the lede for 30 minutes and there are certainly changes that I would make, but I doubt there's consensus to make them. Oh well, maybe I'll shoot for something BOLD and self-revert as a place to discuss. Woodroar (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

First draft

Opinions on this version of the lede? Everyone will probably hate it, but it's worth a shot. Woodroar (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's quite good, though, perhaps I'm just merciless as I would say the third paragraph still strikes me as unnecessary with some slight strengthening of the "commentators dismissed" language. I think stylistically the ending to the second paragraph makes a better conclusion as well. That being said, I would happily support this version as drafted. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I like it. I'm of two minds on whether there's material that was cut that should be kept, but as a shorter summary it works fairly well. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I see it, perhaps cynically and perhaps realistically, as a minimalist version that will necessarily attract cruft, haha. I did consider cutting the third paragraph entirely, but I'm in the middle of a Star Wars marathon at the moment and I had to consider my priorities. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Long live the stormtrooper who bumps his head on the way through the door! Dumuzid (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, no objections here. Artw (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "In August 2014, game developer Zoë Quinn was falsely accused of entering a relationship with a journalist in exchange for positive coverage." or "The harassment against Quinn as well as developer Brianna Wu and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian included doxing, and threats of assault, rape, and murder." is needed as starting sentences. While the initial basis, the events have moved on. It also reads like someone took a look at the order of the section headings and went to mirror that (which isn't always a great idea).

"Most Gamergate supporters are anonymous" might be true and probably sourced, but seems a strong assertion given many can be named (and are proud of their association).

"The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, social criticism in video games, and the identity of gamers." this sentence should be in the opening.

I would say opening paragraph should be along the lines of the below (not how I would actually write it, but here just for expediency):

"Gamergate refers to the controversy around a harassment campaign and issues related to sexism and progressivism in video game culture. "Gamergate" is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign, and actions by those perpetrating the harassment. The harassment was coordinated under the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate, as well as on Internet Relay Chat channels and websites such as reddit, 4chan, and 8chan. The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, social criticism in video games, and the identity of gamers."

You can then go into the specifics / background and wider cultural statements by critics. Koncorde (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really seeing a version of the lede that avoids mentioning Quinn as plausible, since it began as a harrasment campaign against her and they remain obsessed with her. Not really sure there's any evidence of anyone "moving on". Artw (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Ms. Quinn should be mentioned, but I am not sure we need to bring up Ms. Wu or Ms. Sarkeesian in the lead -- I would personally favor a sentence like, "The controversy began with allegations against game developer Zoe Quinn, but quickly grew to include threats and harassment aimed at her as well as a number of other women in the wider video game world." That's clunky, but I trust the idea is visible. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not saying that they don't get mentioned, but that the starting sentences are forced with their inclusion (particularly the way it is currently written). And yes, obviously it has moved on, otherwise why does this have an article at all, rather than just being part of their biographies? Are you saying there is no wider culture war? Because we are presenting evidence across the board that this is much more than harassment of those 3 individuals (even if one of them was the primary focus). Koncorde (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing how we mention them, but I think that sources do support us naming them in the lede. I just looked at 40 references, and of those about or summarizing GamerGate (as opposed to articles about tangentially related topics), only 2 did not mention Quinn and something like 5 did not mention Wu or Sarkeesian. (I was mostly looking for instances of "Quinn" and lost count on Wu and Sarkeesian.) To me, this indicates that all three are very much part of the whole story. Woodroar (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I repeat - the first paragraph should summarise what the article is about. As it currently stands it tries to be too detailed, and then sporadically mentions more critical information elsewhere. This is not about removing those sentences from the lede, it's about where they should sit. Not sure how much more clear I can be. Koncorde (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"the first paragraph should summarise what the article is about." - then Quinn is mentioned exactly where she should be. Artw (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Defending terrible writing and structure is why the article quality sucks. The lede successfully replicates the bloated monstrosity of the body. Koncorde (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Koncorde, my reply was a more general one. I do think that moving the "August 2014" events down in the lede would result in a cleaner first paragraph. But the sources clearly discuss Quinn more than any "culture war", and that counts for something. I hesitate to get too poetic, but Gamergate is notable chiefly because of this war's victims, not because of the war itself. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been arguing since day 1 that this is article is largely a blow-by-blow summary of the harassment of individuals rather than actually about the "controversy" or any other subject matter - so I don't disagree - but that in itself is why this is not a good article. Koncorde (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect Koncorde, that "blow-by-blow" summary approach seems to me to be in line with the way the reliable sources covered this nebulous thing called "gamergate." What specifically do you think is receiving short shrift in the article? Dumuzid (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not the short shrift, it's the gratuitous detail. A lot of the article is Claim vs Counter Claim, which is not synthesis as they are often directly referencing each other, but is also a very uncomfortable read with shoehorned quotations. The Anita Sarkeesian was also overly detailed, but by applying some reasonable editing we were able to summarise the key points more succinctly. As with most articles there's the rush to include quotes and data points from every single source, but after a while you end up with so much information that condensing the article is the best solution. An obvious minor change would be to adjust "History" to "Background" or "Origins of the #Gamergate controversy". Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I certainly agree with you here. Especially as these events recede in to the past, I think you're quite right that we can sort of smooth it out in to more of a narrative. I doubt we'll have consensus just yet, but I have your back, as the youths are wont to say. Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This sentence from the current version needs to stay in the lead: "Many of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag argue that they are campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry." It's essentially the only mention of any other side to this controversy and needs to remain to provide some modicum of neutrality and balance. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Two questions, in the interest of getting things exactly right. (a) How many people would be required for us to describe them as “many”? More than two? Ten? A hundred? Or is the criterion some percentage -- what percentage, exactly? -- of the total number of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag (b) What sources specifically indicate meeting this threshold? Is anyone absolutely certain that "those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag" included any substantial number of individuals? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Plus, one correction. To complain of poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry is absurd, like complaining of poor pitching in NFL Football. People employed in the video game industry are not journalists; they are video game industry employees. What is mean, surely, is alleged ethical lapses among some journalists covering the video-game industry.? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Both your points are easily corrected, if there's consensus to make changes to the sentence. On the first point, by changing "many" to "some" or simply removing the word, based on what sources in the Debate over ethics allegations section say. The four sources right at the beginning of that section look to be the most likely place to look. On the second point, by rewriting the phrasing of the second sentence to more explicitly say "video games journalism" rather than "video games industry". My central point is that some mention of the viewpoint of GG supporters as described by same needs to remain in the lead. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Something really ought to be done about the blanket term statement currently in the lede. It implies that everyone who views thesmselves as amemebr fo gaemrgate or supportive of gamergate, ist aking part in a harassment campaign. Such a claim is not supported in the secondary sources. Brustopher (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right

I removed this claim that the alt-right "engineered" Gamergate, as the sources do not make say this. Do we have sources that actually make that claim? Woodroar (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the same paragraph frpm the alt-right page. That article is a mess even compared with this one. Artw (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate and WaterGate (CamelCase hashtag)

Okay, the original (by Baldwin) and most popular version of the hashtag is CamelCase, and at a previous time, so were most of the references in the article. I know "Watergate" was not a compound word, and neither should most "-gate" things, but that's not what Baldwin wrote, and not what people primarily use. Maybe it's a commentary on how people not being familiar enough with the plain term "scandal" to get interest (see also, Bendgate). IIRC, Strongjam or Woodroar removed most of them for some reason, maybe he felt it was unsightly, but I boldly put it back in the lead as the hashtag. This shouldn't reasonably be any sort of major issue, but then again, this is the GGC lead. If you don't feel it is remotely important, feel free to ignore this notification and go back to restructuring the lead. :) -Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious:. I don't recall removing it, but it's possible. Typically per MOS:CAPS we follow normal English capitalization and don't CamelCase, but I'm not sure if thats a strict rule or just a guideline, Masem may remember better I believe he's who I learned it from. However, I personally don't care as long as we are consistent. There was consensus sometime ago to style it "Gamergate", but if consensus changes that's fine. I don't really have strong opinion one way or another. If we are going to continue with "Gamergate" instead of "GamerGate" it may be worthwhile to just put in something like "... the Gamergate hashtag, typically styled "#GamerGate", ..." — Strongjam (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I've changed "GamerGate" to "Gamergate" en masse previously, unless it was to enforce consensus or the Manual of Style, but of course I could be wrong. Past discussions based on policy have pointed to WP:MOS (especially WP:CAMELCASE), which require that we use standard English capitalization rules in our articles, therefore "Gamergate". Of course, CAMELCASE has changed over time (WP:CCC) and now permits camelcase "where it reflects general usage". So it really doesn't matter how Baldwin capitalized it, but how reliable sources capitalize it, and if they do so consistently.

This presents a problem. Major search engines don't differentiate between case, so we can't search for "GamerGate" and "Gamergate" in Google and see which returns more hits. What we can do is look at the 244 references currently in the article and see that 58 use "GamerGate" in their title and 62 use "Gamergate". Or we can look at the first page of Google results for "gamergate" and see 10 instances of "GamerGate" and 17 of "Gamergate". (I ignored the first result from Wikipedia.) We can extend this to the first 10 pages of Google results, which give us 89 instances of "GamerGate" and 107 of "Gamergate". So "general usage" doesn't point towards camelcased "GamerGate" at all, but "Gamergate". Which means we should change it back, unless, that is, someone has a better method of gauging usage among reliable sources?

And if it's worth anything, I go back and forth but generally use "GamerGate" myself on Talk pages. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I've taken a look at MOS:CAPS's trademark section. The first and second sentences of the first paragraph would relate to not using it as the primary, but the third sentence suggests "mixed or non-capitalized formatting should be mentioned in the article lead, or illustrated with a graphical logo". Looking at the broader trademark policy, the one I think applies best is the 7th outer bullet, with the Oxycontin/OxyContin example. I think in archive 24, Masem uses the 4th outer bullet (with the ASUS example) based on the terms he uses. Most of the archives are strongly against using it as the main style, and it was applied to hashtag in [[Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_33#CamelCase_for_Hashtag.3F[|this]] Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which discussions you're talking about. There's no mention of "ASUS" in any of the archives as far as I could tell. And I'm not sure what you mean about the "CamelCase for Hashtag?" discussion. In any case, it's not like "GamerGate" is a trademark or an official spelling, because there is no official spelling, only what the sources use. I could perhaps see an argument for adding '(sometimes capitalized as "Gamergate")' in the first sentence because a significant percentage of sources use camelcase. As long as that's the consensus opinion, of course. Woodroar (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

WA Post that has the neutrality we need to emulate

Washington Post. Please note the tone of this article, specifically how:

• It acknowledges that GG is reportedly (but not factually) a movement, though in their efforts as a movement, they have engaged in behavior that is considered hostile.
• It acknowledges that there has been harassment surrounding GG, possibly even by some of its members. while other members have attempted to distance GG from this.
• It acknowledges that both sides (GG and the press) are at fault, talking past each other, and failing to find a middle ground.

In other words, this is the receipt for the neutral take on the whole GG situation that we as Wikipedia need to be using that I and others have argued for in the past. It still is highly critical of GG, but recognizes there is no one right answer to describing what GG is. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So, "neutrality" is defined as: "Masem's preferred take." Got it, thanks! And for what it's worth, welcome back. Dumuzid (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, my take has always been that there are so many unknowns and claims being thrown around that the best take for the article is to write it without the absolutes that it currently has, simply to document rather than blame. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a pretty good article, and definitely the kind of higher quality, retrospective analysis I hope to see more of as this stops being burdened by current events style coverage. Emulating that article's balanced approach is something to aim for. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What "sides"? Artw (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I thought you were against op-eds? Artw (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said I was against op-eds, only when editors use op-eds to force a controversial statement made by them as fact rather than a claim, as demanded by NPOV. We're stuck with the fact that most of the coverage of GG is from op-eds from RSes, but we can still make a proper neutral article from that. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The bulk of the op-ed appears under the disclaimer that it's giving Gamergate the benefit of the doubt. While I could see why that would be aplealing to you - you've long been a proponent of a FOX news style "fair and balanced" approach over regular POV rules - I wouldn't characterize doing so as uncontroversial at all. Artw (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said I want anything like FOX "fair and balanced" (which I am assuming is being taken as sarcasm on what that term means given FOX News' reputation). First, as pointed out below, UNDUE/WEIGHT prevents anything from a "balanced" article given the weight of sources critical of GG. I don't question that at this point. Nor is the sources going to make GG smelling like flowers. It is going to come out very much negative sounding for GG. But we can avoid stating absolutes, tempering questionable facts as sourced claims instead and focusing on the fact that no one really has a good handle on what GG , only on what they perceive it is. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, per BLP, as this and other articles name people that call themselves as part of GG, to call that group factually as a harassment group is very much a problem, as this effectively calling those named people harassers without proof. BLP requires us give this the benefit of the doubt, which is the whole point of WP's neutrality policy. We do not judge the topic. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times have you beaten this particular dead horse? I suggest you go bother WP:BLPN about it rather than wasting our time. Artw (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

While its style is a tad too informal to serve as a template for coverage, its gestalt attitude is consistent with what has always been found in the most reliable sources, and has always failed to be reflected on Wikipedia. I expect to see more examples as SXSW unfolds, and hopefully the appearance of a template-quality retrospective piece. Rhoark (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing useful here, and (sigh) Masem apparently needs to be reminded again: the article is a proper, neutral article that reflects the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources -- all of which disagree with Masem. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This would make sense, if only the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources claim were true, and if only there was some sort of WP:FOLLOWTHESOURCES policy which suggested that we should write articles reflecting the slant & tone of an overwhelming consensus of sources. Rightly or wrongly, we only have the policies which actually do exist - WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - the last of which clearly prescribes that articles should be written in a tone impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. The overwhelming consensus argument is a Furphy - stick a flaming fork in it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

one of these days one of you guys are going to read WP:WEIGHT and it's going to blow your minds. Artw (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is also part of WP:NPOV, and cannot be read or understood in isolation from the remainder of that policy. The sections of WP:NPOV which deal with tone are in the introduction, the explanation at WP:YESPOV (Prefer nonjudgemental language), and at WP:IMPARTIAL. WP:WEIGHT cannot be a valid reason for us to ignore these other sections of the same policy. We must find ways to satisfy the whole of the policy - and the whole is clear that tone must be impartial.
I note also that the example presented at WP:WEIGHT, the Flat Earth theory precludes the inclusion of that theory in the Earth article, but does not preclude a fair, neutral & impartially toned explanation of at the Flat Earth article. This, the Gamergate controversy article, is the equivalent of the Flat Earth article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Weight has nothing to do with tone, which is the problem that this article still has. We do not adopt the tone of the popular opinion if that is a controversial opinion. The popular opinion will dominate the article, but we still must write it in a non-condemning tone. Let quotes from the popular opinion condemn GG, but neutrality demands we treat that as claims, not fact. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Masem! I'm sure I'll enjoy this proposal as much as the countless others you will surely soon make. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we going back to Masem's Daily Repetition of thousands of words of text ←←defending the same tired shibboleths? We already have three restatements of the same old discredited argument, that we need to deskew the reliable sources because they are all bias. I've already read hundreds of thousands of words of this from this one editor, as have a number of other volunteers who have worked to prevent Gamergate from using this article to punish women for pursuing careers in the software industry. No, wikipedia will not invent a tone sympathetic to Gamergate harassment beause we support it, or because we think the media are all bias, or because we have super secret insider information that's really keen. If we're returning to this old habit, let's cut straight to the chase and head direct to AE and thence to Arbcom, Congress, and the opinions of mankind. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please tone down the snide remarks and assumptions of bad faith right out of the gate? You don't have to participate if you're not willing to so collegially. The argument is not discredited, merely controversial. There are plenty of editors who feel this article needs a lot of work to more accurately match the tone of the best reliable sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is about reals and not feels, Torchiest. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was essentially my point. The claim that anyone who takes issue with the current state of this article supports harassment has no basis in reality. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the endless claims that the article is biased because you or any of your friends feel offended by it has any hold, nor is it likely to ever. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on this talk page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post is an unquestionably a reliable source. The byline is a reporter subject to editorial control of WP. Generally, we take reliable sources that have the most complete take on a subject which means current sources replace outdated sources when a clearer picture emerges. --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI: It's an op-ed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's style is in the form of an FAQ. It's in the "news" section of Washington Post. It's written by a staff reporter covering a current event SXSW. He's not an editor and I don't see an opinion disclaimer. In any case, facts would still be subject to oversight. Why do you believe it's an op-ed? Our article reads more like an Op-Ed compared to a straight news piece so maybe you are confusing the two? --DHeyward (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your comments and the subsequent disagreement highlight that we really at some point need to have a massive RfC to settle the two big questions that plague all discussions on this article. "Can Gamergate referred to as a movement?" and (once the first question is settled, "What should this article actually be about?" Also, genuinely good to see you back Masem. You were the only person who used to update the article with recent occurences, so with you gone it's gotten kinda out of date. Brustopher (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the general gist of that op-ed overs anything that isn't already in our article; the core conclusion is that "the incredibly violent way in which some Gamergaters have expressed their frustration with video game reporting has poisoned the well for those who honestly believe they're pointing out a problem. And opponents of Gamergate are equally justified in condemning the frothing rage to which they've been subjected", which we already cover, more or less, cited to a better source. Beyond that I don't see much in there that would be useful for rewriting the article; bigger questions about the nature of the controversy and the sides involved are better cited to sources discussing that directly (of which there are many) rather than to an aside in an article about SXSW, which was a tangential aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

+1. But speaking of NPOV, whether Gamergate can be referred to as "a movement" is doubtful, but that is can be referred to as "a conspiracy" is certain. So, when we have that "massive RfC", let's be sure to give equal weight to each proposal. There's also an excellent case to be made for "terrorism campaign" -- a case which, if recent events at Donald Trump’s campaign rallies are an indication -- will soon be yet more salient. The relationship between Trumpism and Gamergate’s sense of grievance does merit a closer look, as we'll doubtless see from the coverage of sessions to which this Washington Post op-ed writer is looking forward, We'll see what unfolds. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)