Support NeoGAF

[thesoapster]

Why do I feel like there is some important information missing here concerning the feminist authors? That, or it looks like one Wikipedia authority figure is simply a piece of shit.

 

[Pandaman]

gamergate is absurd, but that doesn't mean everyone who is anti-gg has an opinion worth being heard on wiki. some of the anti-gamergate people have said and done some pretty vile stuff to push against the movement, so im not convinced this is going to be some big lose for wiki.

 

[Kinyou]

So what did people actually write?

This part from the article makes one of the accounts in question look not so good

There’s a crossover between the two conflicts. One of the five editors banned from editing articles on gender had previously been an active edit-warrior in the debate over whether or not to move Manning’s page – but arguing against the move. He “was a major anti-Chelsea editor who then came out as false flagging,” Brady explains. In other words, he was arguing against moving the page in an emphatically hostile manner, in order to discredit the people genuinely holding that view.

 

[Sephzilla]

Why do I feel like there is some important information missing here concerning the feminist authors?

It feels like there's vital information missing in general here.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

gamergate is absurd, but that doesn't mean everyone who is anti-gg has an opinion worth being heard on wiki. some of the anti-gamergate people have said and done some pretty vile stuff to push against the movement, so im not convinced this is going to be some big lose for wiki.

Exactly, not everyone on the "anti" side is clean in this matter. It's important that the article takes as much of an objective view as possible. Eliminating the irrational extremists on both sides seems logical.

 

[BrokenEchelon]

Militant feminists are as bad as GG misogynists. If they were editing pages and putting a heavy slant on things from their viewpoint, I think it's understandable. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not opinions, no matter how "good" or "right" most might think they are.

I hope having this opinion isn't a banable offense on GAF.

 

[esms]

Couldn't the feminist editors just make throwaway accounts themselves? Or are they IP banned or something?

 

[bsod]

Actually read the Gamergate wiki article. Seems pretty much based on the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

Yeah, I'm reading through the article and it doesn't really portray GamerGate in a positive light, nor does it seem biased. Were these editors banned for trying to infuse their own subjectivity onto the article? If so, I can see why they'd be banned.

 

[NewGame]

It's sad to think that gamergate is our watergate. What a bunch of nerds I will do everything in my power to ensure history forgets this phase.

 

[Lost Fragment]

So in the absence of information about what they did to get penalized, I guess we're assuming that the anti-gg peeps are automatically the victims in this particular instance because they're not on the side we don't like?

 

[Josh7289]

Militant feminists are as bad as GG misogynists. If they were editing pages and putting a heavy slant on things from their viewpoint, I think it's understandable. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not opinions, no matter how "good" or "right" most might think they are.

I hope having this opinion isn't a banable offense on GAF.

For what it's worth, I agree.

The opportunity for any rational discussion in the whole Gamergate debate and surrounding controversies was abandoned long, long ago when all sides decided to use terrible, irrational tactics to prove that they were correct. It turned into a fanatical, almost religious war between ideologues almost as soon as it started.

EDIT: I was wrong about "all sides". As I said later in this thread, I couldn't find any examples of the anti-GG side using these kinds of terrible tactics.

 

[Ri'Orius]

WHo the fuck told you that? Anti gamergate is anti harassment.

Plenty of gators are anti-harassment as well. And there are outspoken aGGs who also seem to support cleansing gaming of things they deem problematic (eg GTA5, Hotline Miami 2, HuniePop, Hatred) that GGers would rather not be banned.

Gators certainly have an exaggerated view of their opponents (and vice-versa), but that view is not entirely baseless (also vice-versa).

 

[devilhawk]

that's not how wikipedia is suppose to work. it's just suppose to be facts.

take a look at the KKK page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

it doesn't flat out say they're racist assholes anywhere, just what they did, objectively.

Exactly.

The article isn't allowed to state "they hate women and everyone following them is pathetic." The article needs to say things like "following the events of blah blah, harassing tweets were made to blah blah under the hashtag #gamergate. Opponents of the movement claim blah blah."

 

[Trojita]

It's in the OP.

Not exactly. We'd have to see the actual edits to make a judgement call on whether the edits were appropriately non-bias. The page is currently locked and only approved editors can actually edit the page. You aren't going to have some random gamer-gate guy changing the contents of the page.

From the Article:

Arbcom’s rulings don’t mean the war is over, but for some editors it’s still giving cause for concern. Abigail Brady, a former Wikipedia editor, left the site over its treatment of the page for whistleblower Chelsea Manning, which was kept under Manning’s old name, of Bradley Manning, for months after she came out as transgender.

There’s a crossover between the two conflicts. One of the five editors banned from editing articles on gender had previously been an active edit-warrior in the debate over whether or not to move Manning’s page – but arguing against the move. He “was a major anti-Chelsea editor who then came out as false flagging,” Brady explains. In other words, he was arguing against moving the page in an emphatically hostile manner, in order to discredit the people genuinely holding that view.”

So basically 1 of the 5 definitely should have been banned.

Wikipedia's quality control for editors and administrators is actually pretty terrible. I've seen some downright petty people that were moderators.

 

[Princess Carl]

This Gamergate thing is still going on? Oh for fuck sake.

If it were up to me I would just ban everyone involved at this point. Pro, anti GG or whatever, I don't care, just GTFO.

Wikipedia are doing the right thing here.

I'm not sorry, you are stupid for saying that. Completely idiotic.

 

[Lambtron]

So in the absence of information about what they did to get penalized, I guess we're assuming that the anti-gg peeps are automatically the victims in this particular instance because they're not on the side we don't like?

Well, considering GG has spent the last 5 months arguing against reality I don't really believe in sides in this debate.

 

[SkeptiMism]

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.

If that's true, and if it's only that, then yes, absolutely this is a bad thing.

But honestly, I kind of doubt it. Gamergate is insane, but a wikipedia writer against gamergate can be biased too and show that bias.

Anyway, will follow this to get more information before judging.

Plenty of gators are anti-harassment as well. And there are outspoken aGGs who also seem to support cleansing gaming of things they deem problematic (eg GTA5, Hotline Miami 2, HuniePop, Hatred) that GGers would rather not be banned.

Gators certainly have an exaggerated view of their opponents (and vice-versa), but that view is not entirely baseless (also vice-versa).

There are probably some insane people who might be for such stupid things, but for the most part it seems that when people make that claim about other people, such as from Sarkeesian, they're just imagining it without any real reason to think so.

 

[Valhelm]

I've always noticed that certain articles on the periphery of Gamergate were biased a little too far in the right direction, but I'm not sure if this change is good.

 

[terrisus]

running a perfectly impartial encyclopedia of this size and scope is probably impossible.

That is likely true.

It can be useful in conjunction with more thorough research.
The problem is when people rely on it as their sole point of research, their sources as the sole point of research, or rely on it as a "source" because "they have references."

 

[Ryuuroden]

So basically Wikipedia is trying to make it like there are 2 defensible sides to the issue when there is not and then to make things worse, they banned the side on the correct end of the issue.

This is like a news show trying to represent two sides of an issue like how old the universe is. One side being the creationists who believe in a litteral 4000 years old, the other side being the scientific community and it's massive amounts of proof that it's way fucking older. Then the news show only lets the creationists talk.

When are news and information centers going to realize that some things really do not have two sides and some that claim they do if you dig a little, it's all manufactured bullshit.

The sad thing is wiki is not even claiming that there are two sides. They are going so far as silencing the correct side. That is like a double fail.

 

[hidys]

While I will admit I am worried about the implications of this decision I would also like to have all of the facts before passing judgement.

 

[Azih]

While I will admit I am worried about the implications of this decision I would also like to have all of the facts before passing judgement.

Facts about what? Gamergate or the wikipedia draft decision?

 

[Ferr986]

Well it looks like you may have inadvertently converted BurnMuhBread. lol

Mind you thats not my intention. I dont really want to take apart much on the GG stuff (I dont think I ever posted on the GG thread on GAF).I want to stay away as much as posible about all of this.
And I gotta say I spoke with some pro-GG that really seems to be more about corncerned about journalism ethics than harrasing Zoe or Anita , but also they dont recognize the harassments as something from the GG movement, and that kinda drive me nuts. And thats without counting the pro-Gg that doesnt even know how GG formed but they are still with the "feminist want to ruins mah games"!

I'm OK with trying to make the VG-journalism better, but GG missed that ship long time ago.

 

[Beaulieu]

I don't understand this whole gamergate thing.
Who are the "pro-gamergate" ? This word makes no sense to me. what is being "anti-gameraget" ? ??

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Wikipedia's quality control for editors and administrators is actually pretty terrible. I've seen some downright petty people that were moderators.

Reading ANY of the Talk pages for entries in orbit of the Internet tells me this has always been the case at Wikipedia. Cliques form, debates on 'notability' veil turf wars that go on for years, etc. Edit fights are petty and frequent over there.

 

[King Tubby]

Wikipedia's quality control for editors and administrators is actually pretty terrible. I've seen some downright petty people that were moderators.

Not NPOV. but I kind of think anyone with thousands of Wikipedia edits is probably going to have a few of those personality issues.

When are news and information centers going to realize that some things really do not have two sides and some that claim they do if you dig a little, it's all manufactured bullshit.

The sad thing is wiki is not even claiming that there are two sides. They are going so far as silencing the correct side. That is like a double fail.

Wikipedia isn't a news organization. It isn't the media. It isn't there to take any side whatsoever except to document verifiable facts. And they are not silencing all anti-GG or pro-GG editors. Read the article, read the GamerGate wiki article.

 

[ICKE]

I don't understand this whole gamergate thing.
Who are the "pro-gamergate" ? This word makes no sense to me. what is being "anti-gameraget" ? ??

This is good. Stay the fuck away from it and never look back. The best thing ever happened to me was a ban when I discussed about it without proper understanding last summer. Have not wasted a second on it since - excluding this article today - and that plan is not going to change.

Most of these internet battles are nothing but a distraction from real policy issues, emotional investment without any meaningful return. A colossal waste of time and on that note I'm out.

 

[Alcoremortis]

So basically Wikipedia is trying to make it like there are 2 defensible sides to the issue when there is not and then to make things worse, they banned the side on the correct end of the issue.

This is like a news show trying to represent two sides of an issue like how old the universe is. One side being the creationists who believe in a litteral 4000 years old, the other side being the scientific community and it's massive amounts of proof that it's way fucking older. Then the news show only lets the creationists talk.

When are news and information centers going to realize that some things really do not have two sides and some that claim they do if you dig a little, it's all manufactured bullshit.

The sad thing is wiki is not even claiming that there are two sides. They are going so far as silencing the correct side. That is like a double fail.

Well, one of my friends is a functionary on wikipedia and has told me that generally the way bans go is they don't care who's right or who's wrong when they're banning, it's really just whoever's being an asshole.

I can imagine that after five months of correcting blatantly false edits to the GamerGate article, the anti guys might have just been frustrated to the point of dickishness. When Arbcom looked in, what they saw was one group being assholes and decided to ban them.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

What a terrible decision. GamerGate people are like climate change deniers or creationists. The only truly objective stance is against it. They shouldn't be given a platform to spout their nonsense, especially on a site like Wikipedia.

 

[commedieu]

I still don't know what that is or even want to know. Shows you how much I spend on the gaming side.

I've gone into those threads... its pretty hairy. Still not sure what its all about, as the message in OP or whatever doesn't seem to be what is actually discussed.

Seems like a bunch of angry men @ women. Just seems to boil down to that.

 

[Valhelm]

Why do I feel like there is some important information missing here concerning the feminist authors? That, or it looks like one Wikipedia authority figure is simply a piece of shit.

Presumably these editors were banned for biased writing or inappropriate behavior with MRA/GamerGate editors that they were opposing.

Wikipedia would never ban them simply for being feminists.

 

[terrisus]

Not exactly. We'd have to see the actual edits to make a judgement call on whether the edits were appropriately non-bias. The page is currently locked and only approved editors can actually edit the page. You aren't going to have some random gamer-gate guy changing the contents of the page.

From the Article:

Arbcom’s rulings don’t mean the war is over, but for some editors it’s still giving cause for concern. Abigail Brady, a former Wikipedia editor, left the site over its treatment of the page for whistleblower Chelsea Manning, which was kept under Manning’s old name, of Bradley Manning, for months after she came out as transgender.

There’s a crossover between the two conflicts. One of the five editors banned from editing articles on gender had previously been an active edit-warrior in the debate over whether or not to move Manning’s page – but arguing against the move. He “was a major anti-Chelsea editor who then came out as false flagging,” Brady explains. In other words, he was arguing against moving the page in an emphatically hostile manner, in order to discredit the people genuinely holding that view.”

So basically 1 of the 5 definitely should have been banned.

Wikipedia's quality control for editors and administrators is actually pretty terrible. I've seen some downright petty people that were moderators.

Reading ANY of the Talk pages for entries in orbit of the Internet tells me this has always been the case at Wikipedia. Cliques form, debates on 'notability' veil turf wars that go on for years, etc. Edit fights are petty and frequent over there.

Maybe something like this will get people at large to be more aware of the issues with Wikipedia, and the problems that can arise from it.

Since, plenty of subgroups of people have been well aware of this for years. And not just the "lol teachers don't want me using Wikipedia because it makes my life easier and makes their job worth less" subgroup.

 

[Beaulieu]

This is good. Stay the fuck away from it and never look back. The best thing ever happened to me was a ban when I discussed about it without proper understanding last summer. Have not wasted a second on it until this article today.

but I mean.. how can one be "pro" or "anti" x-gate ?
the suffix "gate" is used to describes a scandal.
How can you be pro or anti scandal ?

You ever heard about people being "pro-watergate" ? the fuck is this shit.

 

[Cipherr]

A woman named Anita had sex (gasp). A bunch of virgin gamers were highly upset she didn't give up the box to them. So they harassed and doxxed her, sent death threats to her and her family, told her they wanted to rape her among other things. When other women spoke out they too received the same threats of murder and rape to both the females and their immediate family and friends. And the reason why gamers did this is because of "ethnics in game journalism".

And no I'm not kidding, that's literally gamergate.

Glad I never clicked on those stupid ass threads then. What a fucking joke.

 

[Mononoke]

I'm anti-gg. But is it not problematic to have editors be specifically anti-gg and editing articles related to it? I understand wanting to stop gg supporters from trashing pages or writing articles with their slant. But it seems to me, they need to remove either side of this from editing articles about this subject.

No idea how.

Or am I looking at this wrong? If so, I apologize.

Edit: reading more info on it. Seems like there is more to the story.

 

[sangreal]

Reading the decision page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision

The policy violations seem pretty clear and I think the sanctions were warranted

There are plenty of other feminists that can edit wikipedia

 

[Azih]

but I mean.. how can one be "pro" or "anti" x-gate ?
the suffix "gate" is used to describes a scandal.
How can you be pro or anti scandal ?

You ever heard about people being "pro-watergate" ? the fuck is this shit.

The people who were lobbing accusations at Zoe Quinn (and it seems any feminist somewhat linked to gaming) used the hashtag #gamergate to publicize them. They're 'pro gamergate'. The people who think the people attacking Zoe Quinn and other feminists are being misogynistic assholes are 'anti gamergate'

 

[bannedmelon]

This Gamergate thing is still going on? Oh for fuck sake.

If it were up to me I would just ban everyone involved at this point. Pro, anti GG or whatever, I don't care, just GTFO.

Wikipedia are doing the right thing here.

This is a really pointless mindset, and a lot of people are saying similar things. There may be an immense heap of vapid bullshit involved but at its core the issue is misogyny in gaming subculture, which is something any decent person interested enough in games to be on a forum like neogaf should at least be sympathetic to. That doesn't mean you have to spend hours reading up on GG nonsense but don't just throw up your hands and say OH THIS SHIT AGAIN? WELL FUCK IT, THEY'RE BOTH STUPID. I completely agree that this has gone on far too long, in fact it should have never been an issue, but it is one and it's something some people have perfectly good reasons to care about.

 

[jstripes]

Wasn't the original complaint of Gamergaters thoroughly debunked when it was found out that Nathan Grayson didn't write anything about Zoe Quinn after they became an item? Why is this even a thing anymore? There's nothing real here.

"It's not about Zoe Quinn! It's about ethics in video game journalism!"

"Ok, then tell me about these breaches in ethics."

"Well, you see, Zoe Quinn slept with game journalists for reviews of her game..."

 

[Valhelm]

I don't understand this whole gamergate thing.
Who are the "pro-gamergate" ? This word makes no sense to me. what is being "anti-gameraget" ? ??

Gamergate is a movement against the perceived feminist influence on videogame media. Some (many) pro-Gamergate people harass certain feminists in the indie game sphere and argue violently with people who oppose them. Under the guise of protecting ethics, many GG posters are hoping to bully feminists out of the industry, because they believe feminism to be negatively influencing these games.

Most of the GG motivation is based on misinformation and fear. Despite that very few feminists are interested in banning games, huge amounts of GGers are completely convinced that Anita Sarkeesian et al want to make their favorite games illegal. I guess it doesn't help that the actions of a few feminists pressured Target Australia to stop carrying GTA V. Many GGers are motivated by unsubstantiated claims that people like Zoe Quinn fucked male journalists for good reviews, or that non-feminists are "blacklisted from the industry".

Mind, there's harassment and threats going the other way, too. But not as much. There have been claims that some feminist bloggers "fabricated threats against themselves", but I doubt those claims are very credible. Even if they are, it does not compare to the amount of harassment hurled by some GGers at those who oppose them, usually under the guise of "journalistic integrity".

 

[iammeiam]

So the Mark Bernstein article outlines how he believes GG baited the bans.

The problem for GamerGate is that Wikipedia has rules against inserting libels into people’s pages. When GamerGate started to add stuff about female developers’ sex lives to various Wikipedia pages, experienced editors removed it. That led in turn to plan B:

Try to put the sexy story into the article.
After it's removed, argue on the talk page – repeating the sexy stories there.
When people object, argue that some weblog or student newspaper or political columnist somewhere alluded to that sexy story, so it's got to be there.
When people object, argue about the wording. Can we say “they fucked?” How about “blow job?” How about “exchanged sexual favors?”
When people object to that, try it again on against a different woman
A couple of weeks later, repeat step 1 again.
Tactics
To make this stick, you need three separate editors working together.

the PROVOCATEUR inserts the sexy information and argues for it. Often, this account appears to be new and claims to be a naif, an innocent who simply wants to expand the encyclopedia and happens to be well-versed in WikiLaw.
the PALS cheer on the provocateur, repeating and ringing changes on the provocateur’s arguments. If someone reverts the Provocateur, the Pal reinstates the change. Absent an edit war, you only need one Pal, though it helps to have at least two. In an edit war, it’s important to have plenty of Pals, and to coordinate offsite to make sure there's always a couple of Pals on call.
the BOSS rarely or never edits articles, but is extremely active on the talk page, citing policy to support the Provocateur and encourage the Pals. It helps a lot if the Boss is an administrator. It is useful for the Boss to know when and where the Provocateur will be launching a weapon, but it is essential to hide this: the Provocateur and the Pals can write openly on 8chan if they like, but the Boss must never appear. The Boss dominates the talk page and the complaints (see below) but, not editing the article and always citing policy to the same end, protects the team.
the whole team launches constant COMPLAINTS against their opponents in order to remove opposition. Here’s where the Boss is most critical. Pals are expendable, and the Provocateur can be sacrificed at need – even if he’s banned, he can start a new account and become a Pal, or borrow someone else’s disused account and return as a new Provocateur. From the beginning, a major GamerGate goal was to get rid of five specific editors — a goal which the draft decision granted them wholesale.
You need this complexity to evade Wikipedia rules developed to protect against cultists and cranks. These rules work adequately against casual vandals and isolated zealots; GamerGate turned into a debacle because here the cultists and cranks were just sophisticated enough to work the levers, though too short of resources (and seeking too awful a result) to escape detection

So the idea is that you intentionally target and bait people into edit wars and collude off site to have a buddy play impartial and lodge complaints when your target has been successfully baited.

 

[sonicmj1]

Actually read the Gamergate wiki article. Seems pretty much based on the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

Yeah, the article as it stands now seems to pretty fairly reflect what Gamergate is.

 

[old]

Good. I want less bias on wikipedia. Stop turning every space into an ideological battleground.

 

[RockTurtle]

a lot of hyperbole present in this thread is one indication of why measures like this are taken

 

[charlequin]

Since every time this topic comes up we get a new group of people who have (entirely understandable) difficulty figuring out WTF is going on, let me link this compilation post from our previous ongoing discussion thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=135783202&postcount=5

A couple supporting links on the history:

http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/m...amergate-39-s-origins-and-what-it-is-now.aspx

http://meta.ath0.com/2014/10/24/gamergates-origin-story/

http://gamergatecritique.com/2014/10/23/the-history-of-gamergate-part-1-zoe-quinn/

(None of which even scratch the surface of the ludicrous nonsense that's followed.)

 

[Jebusman]

So the Mark Bernstein article outlines how he believes GG baited the bans.


So the idea is that you intentionally target and bait people into edit wars and collude off site to have a buddy play impartial and lodge complaints when your target has been successfully baited.

Come on now. This is reaching into conspiracy theory levels of reaching.

If you read through the arbitration page detailing this whole thing, most of these people were repeat offenders, previously santioned for being involved with edit wars or being unable to remove their own bias while writing. No "baiting" was required here, they were going to self implode on their own.

Edit: Actually re-reading this article more, this person does not seem to understand the point of Wikipedia. It's to present facts. Facts as in "This event happened at this time". Not make judgment calls on the moral or ethical impact of those events. That's for the reader to decide on their own. A slant, even if it's in the direction that society has deemed correct on that given day, is still a slant, and has no place on Wikipedia.

The problem being is that these guys (8chan's GamerGate board) are constantly coming up with crazy and convoluted schemes on how to attack "SJWs". This one is actually one of the more tame examples of the crap they are pulling off.

But apparently this one worked!

It worked no more successfully than I'm able to cause the sun to set by using my magic powers. Sure the sun actually sets every day. But I have to wonder how much my own influence actually caused that.

 

[FlyinJ]

So the Mark Bernstein article outlines how he believes GG baited the bans.


So the idea is that you intentionally target and bait people into edit wars and collude off site to have a buddy play impartial and lodge complaints when your target has been successfully baited.

Holy shit. So, one of the 8chan launched GamerGate "operations" was actually successful?

How incredibly sad.

 

[FlyinJ]

Come on now. This is reaching into conspiracy theory levels of reaching.

If you read through the arbitration page detailing this whole thing, most of these people were repeat offenders, previously santioned for being involved with edit wars or being unable to remove their own bias while writing. No "baiting" was required here, they were going to self implode on their own.

The problem being is that these guys (8chan's GamerGate board) are constantly coming up with crazy and convoluted schemes on how to attack "SJWs". This one is actually one of the more tame examples of the crap they are pulling off.

But apparently this one worked!

 

[KingGondo]

The opportunity for any rational discussion in the whole Gamergate debate and surrounding controversies was abandoned long, long ago when all sides decided to use terrible, irrational tactics to prove that they were correct. It turned into a fanatical, almost religious war between ideologues almost as soon as it started.

Please provide examples of anti-GG doing this.

 

[freenudemacusers]

if you can get baited into a weird edit war on a controversial topic, you should probably not be an editor on wikipedia. I don't see how this is a strictly gamergate issue.

the idea of a 'feminist editor' is also kind of strange to me too. or any "____ editor".