Ambition
Member
I'm not sure my self but I think it's mostly about someone getting laid for good reviews and an asshole boyfriend? idk
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wikipedia bans editors over GamerGate controversy
- Thread starter FlyinJ
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure my self but I think it's mostly about someone getting laid for good reviews and an asshole boyfriend? idk
People that see themselves as outcasts feel that the thing they decided to define themselves as is being changed by the very society that turned them like that so they are reacting aggresively to this chance even tho things stay the same.
The response is mostly aimed at females.
I suggest you include this in the OP as it goes into detail of what happened. Interesting read.
http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Infamous.html
http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Infamous.html
depths20XX
Member
Why is the article even on wikipedia in the first place? Seems like something that would be on encyclopedia dramatica.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
What's the endgame for GGers? To remove all women from games/industry except for scantily clad fighting game characters?
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
Just go back and forth between the gamergate thread here and the kotakuinaction site. It's quite the show, and heaven help you if you don't pick a side.
Nobody got laid in exchange for a good review that's gamergate misinformation.
Yeah, just checked the Gamergate page and they definitely note the response towards them, including the death threats. Just wikipedia policy, so whatever.
teruterubozu
Member
The portal to the gaming side has now been breached. Take cover OT.
Mango The Magician
Banned
What did they do, to get banned?
SliceSabre
Banned
I don't really see a problem here Wikipedia articles are presented from a factual/informative sense they're not supposed to sound like they're written from a pro or con stance no matter the subject.
This Gamergate article is no different than one about the KKK or one about eugenics.
This Gamergate article is no different than one about the KKK or one about eugenics.
I once tried to correct a typographic error, but it was quickly reverted with no reason given, so I just gave up on trying to edit Wikipedia.
speculawyer
Member
I have no idea what it means to be pro- or anti- gamergate.
ShooterMcGavin
Member
Yep, this man gets it.
Wikipedia isn't meant to be a place where subjective opinions on matters are presented. It's just supposed to lay out the "who's and what's."
I literally got told that anti-GGers want to ban games like Bayonetta or DOA so...yes?
Alcoremortis
Member
He doesn't own Wikipedia anymore.
Ambition
Member
Yep, best not to mess with it.
This is what I was thinking as for why the editors were banned.
When you make edits don't you have to justify them as well? Especailly if it's challenged? Maybe the "pro side" was providing justification/argument for why they felt something should be added and kept. The other might not have been and just constantly removing the changes. The action to ban them might not even have to do with the content itself but simply how they conducted themselves and a ban from the broader topics might been done because its felt these editors might not be able to conduct themselves as required by the rules when it comes to this topic.
Coreda
Member
Anyone wanting to know how bad it can get as a woman in tech should read Trouble at the Koolaid Point. Not GG-related but gives an incredible look into how destructive the internet can be towards women with a voice.
Ambition
Member
Wait, what? Fuck that
cubicle47b
Member
Anyone getting in edit wars on Wikipedia probably deserves a ban.
terrisus
Member
When people say that Wikipedia is "great, as long as you check the sources!," this is part of the issue.
There is a ton of systematic bias and questionable decisions on that website with regards to what stays, what goes, what sources are allowed, and what sources are disallowed, among many other things.
There is a ton of systematic bias and questionable decisions on that website with regards to what stays, what goes, what sources are allowed, and what sources are disallowed, among many other things.
Editors at major gaming outlets gave favorable press to Zoe Quinn in exchange for sexual favors -true or false? If you say true, you believe there are no ethics in games journalism, and call the scandal "Gamergate." If you say false, you are correct.
entremet
Member
It's in the OP.
WHo the fuck told you that? Anti gamergate is anti harassment.
having an opinion on whether this is good or bad would require me to wade into the nightmarish confluence of incomprehensible, endless wikipedia editing war politics and incomprehensible, endless gamergate politics, which is giving me the shakes just thinking about. imagine being trapped on a committee having to make a decision about it.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
running a perfectly impartial encyclopedia of this size and scope is probably impossible.
A lot of people missing the point of Wikipedia in here. The anti-GG editors are self admittedly biased and admitted to changing the articles to reflect that. Wikipedia in general tries to stop that, regardless of what side you think is in the right or wrong. This isn't much different than say when wikipedia finds out that a politician is editing their own wikipedia page and banning the editor.
The problem was that the facts being posted by the throwaway GG accounts to the article were false, and the "feminist" editors kept correcting them.
This lead to Wikipedia banning all the editors.
Mango The Magician
Banned
EDIT: So...they (both sides) were trying to basically be biased and kept rewriting the article to reflect this? Yeah, I see problem with this.
I know, just showing how much bullshit there are with some pro-GG people.
King Tubby
Member
This is true...in the delusional world GG seems to think we live in. Yeah, I'm sure all of our entertainment is going to be stripped clean of sexism and sexualized women. Just look at what happened to....uh...
In any case Wikipedia banning anti-GG editors probably means that those editors were violating policy. Wikipedia is not supposed to take any side except the "take no sides" side and some of the people on both sides have been overzealous.
This is what anti-GGers actually believe. It's especially sad because if you're trying to clean up games journalism, your Bastille should not be a fairly obscure small-team indie title like Depression Quest. Lord knows we've had enough broken-ass games from major publishers getting stellar reviews this past year to see where the real issues lie.
Well it looks like you may have inadvertently converted BurnMuhBread. lol
Actually read the Gamergate wiki article. Seems pretty much based on the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
Coffee Dog
Banned
This is how gamergate is still going
Yeah! Let's punish te ones that have been driven out of their homes. That'll show them!!!
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I was just thinking about if Gamergate was still going strong, and then I saw this blow up today. Why would anyone want to be involved in anything that's just an angry sausage party, though?
This mindset right here is the worst.
A Link to the Past
Banned
This is a big part of why I bailed the fuck out of Wikipedia. There's a ton of this kind of shit going on there. A lot of the editors and administrators (not all, obviously) are a certain type of people, and are really amateurs when it comes to how to properly make an encyclopedia.
Pretty much. The whole thing Feels very alienating.
- Status