Support NeoGAF

[Sho_Nuff82]

This is basically what happened:

http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Careless.html

Except (some) people on the anti-GG side seem to feel the need to. It's like they take some weird pride in hurling insults at these guys, and give overly fictitious accounts of the history to make it sound "even worse" than it already is. There's no need for it, and it only hurts the message rather than helps.

No, will you stop quoting that article. This is someone waxing the poetic about how Wikipedia won't allow them to write a biased article, and that merely "presenting the facts" is wrong. On top of believing that 8chan is trying to "remove all the feminists" from Wikipedia (and were successful), when the only people that were banned all had prior bans/restrictions for being involved with previous, and unrelated, edit wars.

Seriously, how else am I supposed to interpret the line:



The central point of wikipedia IS the "someone said something on some day". That's it. You present the fact as it literally happened. Any moral or ethical fallout of those actions can be raised, but it can't be written like that is the predominant, and only, view.

Or:

This is hyperbole at the very least, and a warped sense of reality at it's worst.

If the question here is whether the Zoe/Grayson relationship is fair game for the article, I'm going to have to side with common sense. For the sake of context, it has to be there, along with Eron's blog post, as idiotic as that sounds in retrospect. Quinn is inexorably linked to how the 'movement' started, and the harassment she received was the most oft-cited (along with Anita's) in how GG opponents were treated.

That the "ethics" debate arose out of false allegations of conflict of interest centered around a woman is central to understanding the misogyny dripping from the online vitriol.

 

[Simply Sarah]

The central point of wikipedia IS the "someone said something on some day". That's it. You present the fact as it literally happened. Any moral or ethical fallout of those actions can be raised, but it can't be written like that is the predominant, and only, view.

No, this is not how Wikipedia works. Random asshole X saying some random nonsense about person Y on 8chan or Twitter or whatever is not enough to justify including it in an article in any way, shape, or form. Granted, exactly at which point it does become justified for inclusion can become sticky, but generally it at least needs to be reported in something that Wikipedia considers a "reliable source". And when talking about something related to a living person then you generally need some further justification on top of that since otherwise Wikipedia would be utterly full of blatant hearsay and defamation.

 

[devilhawk]

GamerGate thinks women are destroying games, harasses said women and then says "you can't prooove it" and as of recently defended the fact that the board where they based their operations also hosts child erotica

Draw your own conclusions

Part of the reason most on this forum and a much, much larger majority of the general public can't find a reason to care about this is things like "board where they based their operations." I'd bet 99% of the twitter and facebook users that have sided with gamergate in some fashion couldn't even name the forum you referenced.

Acting like this is some wide-spread nefarious organization with representatives and "bases" is part of the reason no one gives a shit.

 

[Cyan]

Wikipedia's model is essentially truth-seeking through evidence-backed discussion and consensus. The aim is to be as accurate as possible, despite biases and so on, and all their rules are in place to try to further that aim. If certain editors are breaking or circumventing the rules, well, even if ultimately I think they're correct, it makes sense to stop them from doing that.

If GG has hit upon a replicable model for getting editors you don't like banned, then I'm sure the rules will be updated to take that into account.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

Wikipedia's model is essentially truth-seeking through evidence-backed discussion and consensus. The aim is to be as accurate as possible, despite biases and so on, and all their rules are in place to try to further that aim. If certain editors are breaking or circumventing the rules, well, even if ultimately I think they're correct, it makes sense to stop them from doing that.

If GG has hit upon a replicable model for getting editors you don't like banned, then I'm sure the rules will be updated to take that into account.

Pretty much. The proGG editors should also be banned. Stop putting opinions where its supposed to objective.

 

[J-Rod]

I think GG'ers are nuts, but I think the bans were probably justified.

 

[Jebusman]

No, this is not how Wikipedia works. Random asshole X saying some random nonsense about person Y on 8chan or Twitter or whatever is not enough to justify including it in an article in any way, shape, or form. Granted, exactly at which point it does become justified for inclusion can become sticky, but generally it at least needs to be reported in something that Wikipedia considers a "reliable source". And when talking about something related to a living person then you generally need some further justification on top of that since otherwise Wikipedia would be utterly full of blatant hearsay and defamation.

If I have a "reliable source" that Random asshole X says some shit about person Y, I get to include it. But it doesn't mean I get to write, in literal terms "Person X, who by the way is an asshole, was harrasing our patron saint, and all things good, Person Y". I would just write "Person X said this to person Y". That's the point I'm trying to make. You don't include bias into events. You present the events as they happened.

Wikipedia presents facts, not opinion. Some people are mad because the article won't present the direct "opinion" that Gamergate is bad, when just portraying the events in a matter-of-fact way indirectly accomplishes this.

 

[RockTurtle]

Pretty much. The proGG editors should also be banned. Stop putting opinions where its supposed to objective.

if they break the rules like the antiGG editors did sure, but until that happens

 

[Brakke]

Pretty much. The proGG editors should also be banned. Stop putting opinions where its supposed to objective.

I think the rub here is most of the pro-GG accounts being censured are single-purpose or throw-away accounts, while most of the anti-GG accounts being censured are older, and more established. There's a sense in which the accountability and consequences are asymmetrical, which makes this tactic potentially exploitable.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

if they break the rules like the antiGG editors did sure, but until that happens

Ah my mistake, I thought some were gettimg banned bc of the edit wars?

Anyway it sounds like people are warping stories to fit their own point of view. Do the reasearch first! Please, I'm begging you. Then post your opinion. Educated opinions are the best.

 

[FlyinJ]

If I have a "reliable source" that Random asshole X says some shit about person Y, I get to include it. But it doesn't mean I get to write, in literal terms "Person X, who by the way is an asshole, was harrasing our patron saint, and all things good, Person Y". I would just write "Person X said this to person Y". That's the point I'm trying to make. You don't include bias into events. You present the events as they happened.

Wikipedia presents facts, not opinion. Some people are mad because the article won't present the direct "opinion" that Gamergate is bad, when just portraying the events in a matter-of-fact way indirectly accomplishes this.

Wait, the editors who were banned were putting in opinion copy that was slanderous/opinionated against GamerGate? Can you link to this?

It was my understanding that all they were doing was constantly editing out false facts that the Gamer Gate throw away accounts were putting in the article...

 

[Kinyou]

I think the rub here is most of the pro-GG accounts being censured are single-purpose or throw-away accounts, while most of the anti-GG accounts being censured are older, and more established. There's a sense in which the accountability and consequences are asymmetrical, which makes this tactic potentially exploitable.

Previous sanctions were taken into account when they made their decision, so perhaps it was exactly because they already had a long history that they got the kick.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I think the rub here is most of the pro-GG accounts being censured are single-purpose or throw-away accounts, while most of the anti-GG accounts being censured are older, and more established. There's a sense in which the accountability and consequences are asymmetrical, which makes this tactic potentially exploitable.

pro-GG accounts would likely always be single purpose because GG supporters are more often than not armchair critics or internet forum warriors, there is literally no one prominent in society or even close to the number of prominent people who supports pro-GG in such a way. This is different from anti-GG accounts who are well known people supporting them and not just feminists but quazi-feminist supporters as well. I think Wikipedia did the right thing in banning both the edit-warriors on both sides in favor of objectivity


There are 3 types of folks here


1. Anti-GG : The vehement ones and pro feminists or feminist supporting. This group has a lot of Prominent and popular supporters
2. The neutrals: the curious people
3. Pro-GG: The vehement ones and anti-feminists and those that are threatening women along the process in some cases. This group is more supporters by those who have a strong opinion against women on internet and are not popular outside the internet

Wikipedia has taken its action against 1 and 3

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

I think the rub here is most of the pro-GG accounts being censured are single-purpose or throw-away accounts, while most of the anti-GG accounts being censured are older, and more established. There's a sense in which the accountability and consequences are asymmetrical, which makes this tactic potentially exploitable.

Are we sure that these accounts were just made after the GG controversy and actually reflected some moron's opinion? I feel like the banning of the more established anti'GG could be justified because of past digressions if they did indeed overstepped rules. But if these accounts were just handles, wikipedia should use info like perhaps IP adress to make sure they aren't other pro-GG editors.

 

[Simply Sarah]

If I have a "reliable source" that Random asshole X says some shit about person Y, I get to include it. But it doesn't mean I get to write, in literal terms "Person X, who by the way is an asshole, was harrasing our patron saint, and all things good, Person Y". I would just write "Person X said this to person Y". That's the point I'm trying to make. You don't include bias into events. You present the events as they happened.

Wikipedia presents facts, not opinion. Some people are mad because the article won't present the direct "opinion" that Gamergate is bad, when just portraying the events in a matter-of-fact way indirectly accomplishes this.

Except that the proposed findings of facts for the ArbCom case in question don't actually say the anti-GG people did any of that except for one being found to have misused sources. The behaviours said people are potentially being sanctioned for are edit warring and battlegound conduct (Which I take to mean basically means being very uncivil and making the situation worse). These actions are clearly against the rules of Wikipedia. But saying they acted badly is not the same as saying they tried to push a biased view in the article text.

 

[jakonovski]

Wait, the editors who were banned were putting in opinion copy that was slanderous/opinionated against GamerGate? Can you link to this?

It was my understanding that all they were doing was constantly editing out false facts that the Gamer Gate throw away accounts were putting in the article...

This thing is basically impossible to follow, so arguably the best bet for those of us not invested in this thing is to just go with Wikipedia's judgment. At least they have the track record of successfully running a really good encyclopedia website for a really long time.

 

[FlyinJ]

This thing is basically impossible to follow, so arguably the best bet for those of us not invested in this thing is to just go with Wikipedia's judgment. At least they have the track record of successfully running a really good encyclopedia website for a really long time.

I'm certainly not just going to trust Wikipedia's judgement on something like this.

I want the facts.

 

[Jebusman]

Except that the proposed findings of facts for the ArbCom case in question don't actually say the anti-GG people did any of that except for one being found to have misused sources. The behaviours said people are potentially being sanctioned for are edit warring and battlegound conduct (Which I take to mean basically means being very uncivil and making the situation worse). These actions are clearly against the rules of Wikipedia. But saying they acted badly is not the same as saying they tried to push a biased view in the article text.

Unless I'm reading this wrong (because man, they do not make this layout easy), 2 of the 5 were misusing sources (although only 1 managed to get the majority vote on it), and the rest were all battleground editing. And sometimes that war editing brought in slanted statements rather than clear facts.

I just don't see why anyone would consider this a slight against anti-GG people, more so than just a slight against bad editors, almost all of which were known offenders.

 

[jakonovski]

I'm certainly not just going to trust Wikipedia's judgement on something like this.

I want the facts.

I was referring to the decisions to ban.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I still have no idea what GamerGate is. What it is about, how it started.

 

[cirrhosis]

I still have no idea what GamerGate is. What it is about, how it started.

This post and the threads it links to are good primers.

 

[AlexMogil]

I still have no idea what GamerGate is. What it is about, how it started.

The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good! I think after that (it's pretty dry and is very much a summary) you could hit some of the reference links or this post.

 

[The Technomancer]

I still have no idea what GamerGate is. What it is about, how it started.

A guy posted a long blog post claiming that his ex, a relatively obscure but somewhat infamous (for receiving similar harassment over just releasing her game a year back) had cheated on him with some other guys, including allegedly a journalist who wrote good things about her work.

he then deliberately fanned the flames to get people on 4chan and similar places to harass her over it

two minutes of googling shows that the "journalist" in question didn't write anything about her game or her work

six months later she's still receiving death and rape threats daily and is afraid to return home (she's overseas at the moment)

Also the hate train has expanded to include similar feminist figures like Anita "Games have some sexist stuff in them" Sarkeesian and Brianna "literally just a woman who makes games" Wu

 

[Jebusman]

I'm certainly not just going to trust Wikipedia's judgement on something like this.

I want the facts.

I really don't mean to sound like a douche here, but "I want the facts." is incredibly at odds with your OP presenting this as a one sided "Wikipedia bans feminists" issue.

You're willing to blindly trust the "facts" when it seems like you agree with them (that silly >implying 8chan article), but someone raises doubt and all of a sudden "I can't trust them, I need the FACTS".

 

[The Albatross]

I still have no idea what GamerGate is. What it is about, how it started.

I can never keep straight who a "GamerGater" is or a "pro-GG" or "anti-GG." None of this shit makes sense and people who say "just read this post..." and link to the 10,000 page posts that is filled with drama and he-said-she-said, edits, and is either completely biased or one side or completely biased to another, etc.

But, honestly, this Wikipedia thing makes me skeptical of the perspective of whoever got banned from Wikipedia (I can't even tell if it's an "anti-GG" or "pro-GG" either or what that means). The "high court of Wikipedia," really only bans editors -- in my experience -- who present something with bias over and over again and refused to accept the norms on wikipedia. So far, it's created an incredibly successful website that generally has very reliable information. I'd pretty much defer to them if they think somebody is ruining an article or not presenting it in a way that is suitable for the website.

 

[The Technomancer]

I can never keep straight who a "GamerGater" is or a "pro-GG" or "anti-GG." None of this shit makes sense and people who say "just read this post..." and link to the 10,000 page posts that is filled with drama and he-said-she-said, edits, and is either completely biased or one side or completely biased to another, etc.

I understand where this kind of concern comes from

But this is literally as one sided as climate change.

The reason why accurate assessments of GamerGate read as biased against it is because GamerGate really is that bad

 

[BrassDragon]

I'm fascinated by the theorycrafting relating to gaming Wikipedia. There's some truly dedicated social engineering at play here. From the blog linked upthread:

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:

1. Try to put the sexy story into the article.
2. After it's removed, argue on the talk page – repeating the sexy stories there.
3. 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.
4. When people object, argue about the wording. Can we say “they fucked?” How about “blow job?” How about “exchanged sexual favors?”
5. When people object to that, try it again on against a different woman
6. 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.

 

[Derekloffin]

Well, this kind of thing isn't new to Wikipedia. Edit warring is frowned upon no matter what. You're supposed to take this sort of thing to the talk page, fail that there is other systems in place. Those can seem slow and clunky a lot of time so people directly war with each other and this sort of thing is the result. You can complain about it, but really, long standing accounts or not, they F'ed up and didn't respect the rules of the site. And burner accounts are also nothing new and crying about them doesn't change that they F'ed up. There is procedures in place for those situations too. Again, they may seem clunky and slow, but they are there.

I sympathize, I've been in edit wars there myself over some pretty blatant OR and Opinion pushing, but you have to know when to draw the line and look to the other conflict resolution mechanisms.

 

[FlyinJ]

I really don't mean to sound like a douche here, but "I want the facts." is incredibly at odds with your OP presenting this as a one sided "Wikipedia bans feminists" issue.

You're willing to blindly trust the "facts" when it seems like you agree with them (that silly >implying 8chan article), but someone raises doubt and all of a sudden "I can't trust them, I need the FACTS".

That's why I want to see links to where the editors who were banned were posting "opinion" pieces on the article. Many people have said this was why they were banned in this thread, and I have not seen a single link to back up this statement.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I can never keep straight who a "GamerGater" is or a "pro-GG" or "anti-GG." None of this shit makes sense and people who say "just read this post..." and link to the 10,000 page posts that is filled with drama and he-said-she-said, edits, and is either completely biased or one side or completely biased to another, etc.

But, honestly, this Wikipedia thing makes me skeptical of the perspective of whoever got banned from Wikipedia (I can't even tell if it's an "anti-GG" or "pro-GG" either or what that means). The "high court of Wikipedia," really only bans editors -- in my experience -- who present something with bias over and over again and refused to accept the norms on wikipedia. So far, it's created an incredibly successful website that generally has very reliable information. I'd pretty much defer to them if they think somebody is ruining an article or not presenting it in a way that is suitable for the website.

I just skimmed through the wiki, it's a pretty good summary.

The bannings seem to revolve around the inclusion of details of the allegations against Quinn, even if the article then reports the allegations are baseless?

It seems that pro-GG see it as a win if they get to post juicy details about Quinn's sex life, even if they are debunked or from poor sources. The existence in the article is presumably part of the ongoing harassment. I really don't see how specific sex acts are relevant other than to humiliate those involved.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Unless I'm reading this wrong (because man, they do not make this layout easy), 2 of the 5 were misusing sources (although only 1 managed to get the majority vote on it), and the rest were all battleground editing. And sometimes that war editing brought in slanted statements rather than clear facts.

I just don't see why anyone would consider this a slight against anti-GG people, more so than just a slight against bad editors, almost all of which were known offenders.

Well, part of my view here is coming from prior experiences editing and following Wikipedia. Let me lay out how things happen on some controversial topics, especially if they're ones that are less in the mainstream view and where one party/side/etc. seems to factually come out pretty badly. I'm not saying all these steps happen often or that every article is like this, but I've seen it more than should happen.

1. The articles(s) on said topic are made and updated and all-in-all are pretty good and objective. Based on the facts, a group or whatever tends to come out not looking so great.
2. People part of said group or otherwise supporters of it try to hijack the articles into puff pieces or, at least, so that said group doesn't seem to come off as badly.
3. Other users fix these issues.
4. Step 2 repeats over and over. Most people aren't looking at the articles very much, at least not to edit, which often seems to result in only the more dedicated (and perhaps extreme) people "defending" the topic. Talk pages for said articles are often unfriendly to anyone that isn't willing to be more stern in arguments. Since they're often more extreme, stern, and since the same sort of thing keeps happening, the people focused on maintaining the page can end up being, well, somewhat assholish.
5. Eventually things reach a point where administrative action is taken and often many involved get topic banned or the like. This, in turn, sometimes leads to things that objectively should be included in articles not being included and also can keep informed and good, if abrasive, editors away from articles.

It's also possible to reverse all this. A bad article is protected by a defense force and only the more dedicated folk try to make it fair in the face of that.

Basically, this is something that has happened more than once and Wikipedia is still struggling to find the ideal way to deal with outside troublemakers.

Well, this kind of thing isn't new to Wikipedia. Edit warring is frowned upon no matter what. You're supposed to take this sort of thing to the talk page, fail that there is other systems in place. Those can seem slow and clunky a lot of time so people directly war with each other and this sort of thing is the result. You can complain about it, but really, long standing accounts or not, they F'ed up and didn't respect the rules of the site. And burner accounts are also nothing new and crying about them doesn't change that they F'ed up. There is procedures in place for those situations too. Again, they may seem clunky and slow, but they are there.

I sympathize, I've been in edit wars there myself over some pretty blatant OR and Opinion pushing, but you have to know when to draw the line and look to the other conflict resolution mechanisms.

Yes and no. BLP issue treatment is supposed to play things safe until it is confirmed that something is OK, so if people are trying to force BLP violating stuff into articles you can't really leave it there while the clunk and slow procedures play out.

 

[Kinyou]

I'm fascinated by the theorycrafting relating to gaming Wikipedia. There's some truly dedicated social engineering at play here. From the blog linked upthread:

Honestly, that sounds almost as crazy as some of the theories gamergate themselves come up with. That none of it is sourced doesn't help.

 

[Jebusman]

Well, part of my view here is coming from prior experiences editing and following Wikipedia. Let me lay out how things happen on some controversial topics, especially if they're ones that are less in the mainstream view and where one party/side/etc. seems to factually come out pretty badly. I'm not saying all these steps happen often or that every article is like this, but I've seen it more than should happen.

1. The articles(s) on said topic are made and updated and all-in-all are pretty good and objective. Based on the facts, a group or whatever tends to come out not looking so great.
2. People part of said group or otherwise supporters of it try to hijack the articles into puff pieces or, at least, so that said group doesn't seem to come off as badly.
3. Other users fix these issues.
4. Step 2 repeats over and over. Most people aren't looking at the articles very much, at least not to edit, which often seems to result in only the more dedicated (and perhaps extreme) people "defending" the topic. Talk pages for said articles are often unfriendly to anyone that isn't willing to be more stern in arguments. Since they're often more extreme, stern, and since the same sort of thing keeps happening, the people focused on maintaining the page can end up being, well, somewhat assholish.
5. Eventually things reach a point where administrative action is taken and often many involved get topic banned or the like. This, in turn, sometimes leads to things that objectively should be included in articles not being included and also can keep informed and good, if abrasive, editors away from articles.

It's also possible to reverse all this. A bad article is protected by a defense force and only the more dedicated folk try to make it fair in the face of that.

Basically, this is something that has happened more than once and Wikipedia is still struggling to find the ideal way to deal with outside troublemakers.

See, I get all that, and I can buy the idea that people would try to "game" the system in order to get respected editors banned.

But what I'm seeing is people who ended up being assholish not just to the other editors, but the admins as well. I mean that Devil's Advocate guy, his statement was an attempt at throwing numerous admins under the bus simultaneously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Statement_by_The_Devil.27s_Advocate

Quite frankly this article could have been about cheese in france and I don't think it would've changed how this guy acts, along with the others involved in this.

 

[Sesuadra]

Pretty much. The proGG editors should also be banned. Stop putting opinions where its supposed to objective.

and because of that, the decision made by wikipedia is good.

 

[BajiBoxer]

I can never keep straight who a "GamerGater" is or a "pro-GG" or "anti-GG." None of this shit makes sense and people who say "just read this post..." and link to the 10,000 page posts that is filled with drama and he-said-she-said, edits, and is either completely biased or one side or completely biased to another, etc.

But, honestly, this Wikipedia thing makes me skeptical of the perspective of whoever got banned from Wikipedia (I can't even tell if it's an "anti-GG" or "pro-GG" either or what that means). The "high court of Wikipedia," really only bans editors -- in my experience -- who present something with bias over and over again and refused to accept the norms on wikipedia. So far, it's created an incredibly successful website that generally has very reliable information. I'd pretty much defer to them if they think somebody is ruining an article or not presenting it in a way that is suitable for the website.

I don't understand what's so complicated about it, though that could be because I heard about it pretty early on the ignored it for awhile thinking it would just fizzle out. Was kind of shocked how much the GamerGate groups escalated their behavior though. I mean it's a loosely organized group that's done some straightforwardly awful things to women and supporters of these women.

The behavior of any individual anti-GamerGate person is pretty irrelevant since that group consists of every single person who is aware of what GamerGate is and doesn't agree with their actions. That's the only commonality.

 

[Simply Sarah]

See, I get all that, and I can buy the idea that people would try to "game" the system in order to get respected editors banned.

But what I'm seeing is people who ended up being assholish not just to the other editors, but the admins as well. I mean that Devil's Advocate guy, his statement was an attempt at throwing numerous admins under the bus simultaneously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Statement_by_The_Devil.27s_Advocate

Quite frankly this article could have been about cheese in france and I don't think it would've changed how this guy acts, along with the others involved in this.

Oh sure. I don't disagree that bad behaviour is still bad behaviour. It's just that better solutions need to be put into place to keep provocative behaviour by bad actors from being a way to manipulate Wikipedia. I'm less concerned about this specific situation and more about patterns.

 

[Dryk]

What's the endgame for GGers? To remove all women from games/industry except for scantily clad fighting game characters?

No if you're a woman that never mentions she's a woman you're safe too. Otherwise you're just seeking attention for being a woman.

For instance. https://twitter.com/trustedtrevor/status/527981156466446336
http://www.reaxxion.com/3720/totalbiscuit-is-sent-death-wish-by-anti-gamergate-for-promoting-charity
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/for...ear-old-Girl-who-wanted-to-Be-a-good-feminist

But of course you'll find some way to ignore this thing completely, or say it's all lies, bullshit, fake and whatnot.

Both sides have nutcases and valid points.

I won't deny that some people that speak out against these arseholes take things too far, but anti-GamerGate isn't unified movement so trying to tar them all with the same brush doesn't work as well. People on KiA and 8chan are well aware of the consequences of their discussions at this point, and they just don't care.

Also TotalBiscuit was totally in the wrong on the charity stream. Those people didn't want his GamerGate followers dogpiling their stream and his response was "Fuck you you should be grateful" instead of "Sorry I'll delete the tweet".

 

[Toxi]

The article should present both sides of the issue in a fair way. It doesn't matter which side you support, this is (was?) a significant movement that gained attention. You may not agree with it, but it did happen.

This is equivalent to asking the Ku Klux Klan article to present both sides in a fair way.

Objective coverage does not mean finding an arbitrary middle ground. Objective coverage means presenting the relevant facts in an appropriate manner. Unfortunately for GamerGate, vaccine deniers, creationists, and other groups of assholes, reality is biased against them. Treating their arguments as legitimate gives a warped view of reality.

 

[FlyinJ]

and because of that, the decision made by wikipedia is good.

Seriously, can we get some links showing that these editors were putting anti-GamerGate opinions into the article before everyone starts jumping to conclusions?

From everything I've read, they did nothing of the sort.

 

[Jebusman]

Oh sure. I don't disagree that bad behaviour is still bad behaviour. It's just that better solutions need to be put into place to keep provocative behaviour by bad actors from being a way to manipulate Wikipedia. I'm less concerned about this specific situation and more about patterns.

I just struggle to see a way that would accomplish this without removing the core of "anyone can edit" Wikipedia.

Quite frankly the correct answer should be "Find a way to convince the bad people to stop being bad" and not "Find a way to stop the bad people from being able to fuck with stuff, while not really dealing with the situation that they're bad people". I know it's out of Wikipedia's hands in that regard, but really what else are they supposed to do?

Seriously, can we get some links to where these editors were putting anti-GamerGate opinions into the article before everyone starts jumping to conclusions?

From everything I've read, they did nothing of the sort.

Did I say anti-gamergate opinions? Like, with those words? If I did I apologize, because I swear I've been trying to keep this on what I think was the prevailing attitude, which is presenting the events in a way that could be interpreted as opinion. Trust me I'm trying to find a good way to present this, Wikipedia does not make this easy. Now, this isn't to say some of them weren't banned for just being standoffish, which they were, and that it was entirely stricted to the Gamergate page, which it wasn't. A lot of this came through via the talk pages across numerous topics.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Last Week Tonight already covered why it's absolutely silly to give both sides fair representation when one is clearly just stupid, backwards, and against a large part of the population.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&ab_channel=LastWeekTonight

 

[jakonovski]

Indeed, Wikipedia works through the law of averages.

edit: was commenting on Jebusman's post about the anyone can edit nature of Wikipedia.

 

[Jebusman]

Last Week Tonight already covered why it's absolutely silly to give both sides fair representation when one is clearly just stupid, backwards, and against a large part of the population.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&ab_channel=LastWeekTonight

Except in this case, giving both sides "fair representation", aka, presenting the facts exactly as they happened, still end up with the effect of making one side look bad. Which is the desired result in the first place.

That's what fair representation means in this case. What it "actually" means anyway.

If you slant the article towards Pro-GG, it gives a warped view of reality.

If you slant it towards anti-GG, which yes, while you can think this is the correct and only way to interpret it, you can still slant it, it's still wrong.

It would be the equivalent of making the statement "Man that Hilter, he killed like a billion jews, what an asshole, eh?". It's still not a truthful statement, even if the point is still correct in that Hitler was, in fact, an asshole. I just want it to be an accurate telling of what he did, and then I can determine for myself whether or not he was, in fact, an asshole.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

He was

 

[Cybit]

This is equivalent to asking the Ku Klux Klan article to present both sides in a fair way.

Objective coverage does not mean finding an arbitrary middle ground. Objective coverage means presenting the relevant facts in an appropriate manner. Unfortunately for GamerGate, vaccine deniers, creationists, and other groups of assholes, reality is biased against them. Treating their arguments as legitimate gives a warped view of reality.

You should read the KKK Wikipedia article.

It isn't about presenting "both sides", it's about a completely factual recounting of their history as well as the things they have done without editorial comment. Because that's all it is, it is very easy to piece together that they are racist pieces of scum.

The issue with the Gamergate wikipedia article was that they were trying to keep it purely as objective coverage (and let GG's own actions damn them in the eyes of folks) - but then an edit war broke out between two sets of editors trying to more or less slant the article towards their own PoV.

 

[FlyinJ]

Did I say anti-gamergate opinions? Like, with those words? If I did I apologize, because I swear I've been trying to keep this on what I think was the prevailing attitude, which is presenting the events in a way that could be interpreted as opinion. Trust me I'm trying to find a good way to present this, Wikipedia does not make this easy. Now, this isn't to say some of them weren't banned for just being standoffish, which they were, and that it was entirely stricted to the Gamergate page, which it wasn't. A lot of this came through via the talk pages across numerous topics.

I was responding to all of these people saying that these editors were banned for adding biased anti-gamergate copy to the articles by asking for facts and links.

You quoted me and started lecturing me about how I was being biased for seeking these facts, and I explained to you again why I wanted them.

 

[Toxi]

Anyone identifying pro/anti-anything shouldn't be allowed to influence what are supposed to be informative articles about whatever that subject is. My guess is that if Wikipedia felt the need to ban them, they weren't trying to fix a slant as much as they were trying to change the direction of it.

I don't know about banning them from editing feminist articles all together, I guess that would depend on how much "fixing" was being done on the articles they were banned for.

Let's remove the anti-creationist editors from Wikipedia.

Bias is not a problem. Editorializing and posting irrelevant/faulty information are problems.

You should read the KKK Wikipedia article.

It isn't about presenting "both sides", it's about a completely factual recounting of their history as well as the things they have done without editorial comment. Because that's all it is, it is very easy to piece together that they are racist pieces of scum.

The issue with the Gamergate wikipedia article was that they were trying to keep it purely as objective coverage (and let GG's own actions damn them in the eyes of folks) - but then an edit war broke out between two sets of editors trying to more or less slant the article towards their own PoV.

Unfortunate. One problem with Wikipedia is that even without loaded words, the way facts are presented can be slanted; just look at a high school history textbook. If something isn't relevant and is just there as a talking point, it needs to be culled. If something important isn't mentioned, it needs to be mentioned (and cited).

 

[Jebusman]

I was responding to all of these people saying that these editors were banned for adding biased anti-gamergate copy to the articles by asking for facts and links.

You quoted me and started lecturing me about how I was being biased for seeking these facts, and I explained to you again why I wanted them.

I was lecturing you for believing, at face value, an article from a guy who wrote a conspiracy level setup for how wikipedia is the cause of the lack of women in the computing world. You were presenting it as fact despite there being no source or way to prove it.

Then when someone presents the idea that maybe, these guys weren't just banned because "feminism", that you need proof for.

A double standard. If I could spend some time actually going back to the arbitration page rather than responding here, I'd get you something.

 

[xenist]

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not some pulpit.

Gamegators are rancid shits but neither their opinions nor the anti-GG ones have any place in an encyclopedia.

 

[FlyinJ]

I was lecturing you for believing, at face value, an article from a guy who wrote a conspiracy level setup for how wikipedia is the cause of the lack of women in the computing world. You were presenting it as fact despite there being no source or way to prove it.

Then when someone presents the idea that maybe, these guys weren't just banned because "feminism", that you need proof for.

A double standard. If I could spend some time actually going back to the arbitration page rather than responding here, I'd get you something.

That isn't what I was asking for facts about.

Again, I wanted these people accusing the editors of being banned for putting biased opinions into the article to present facts to back their assertions.

EDIT: See the post directly above mine. These accusations are completely baseless and are passing as fact. Please look at the post I was quoting that you initially responded to.

 

[Aaron Strife]

GamerGate is fucking stupid