Support NeoGAF

[BennyBlanco]

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

This is way more interesting and a better written article than the "Gamergate controversy" article.

 

[Jebusman]

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.

I know you're missing the point here, and I don't blame you. I'll just back out, it's been fun.

But please, understand this:

You were willing to believe an unsourced and quite frankly ridiculous story about how Wikipedia "handed the keys to Gamergate" because it fit in exactly with your viewpoint on the subject. That you didn't need facts for.

But the story that the editors were banned possibly NOT for just solely neutral views, but due to introducing their own slant on the article, you needed some proof to back that up.

I'm saying that both of these scenarios should have been treated with skepticism and fact finding.

 

[GamerJM]

From what I understand this is dumb, banning editors simply for being feminist is silly since their opinions won't necessarily affect the Wikipedia articles, banning GGers isn't because you're effectively banning people who participate in a hate campaign which isn't something you should ever want associated with the website anyways.

 

[Walshicus]

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.

If that method is to goad editors into behaving inappropriately then I'm not sure how you can change the rules to "fix" that.

From what I understand this is dumb, banning editors simply for being feminist is silly since their opinions won't necessarily affect the Wikipedia articles, banning GGers isn't because you're effectively banning people who participate in a hate campaign which isn't something you should ever want associated with the website anyways.

Then I guess you didn't really read the OP. Editors weren't banned for being feminists; they were banned for demonstrating an inability to be impartial.

 

[Randam]

still don't know what gamergate is either.

it is about women in videogames/the videogame industry?

is "gamegate" pro women, or are the sexist ones?
where do the feminists stand?

 

[FlyinJ]

still don't know what gamergate is either.

it is about women in videogames/the videogame industry?

is "gamegate" pro women, or are the sexist ones?
where do the feminists stand?

There is a link in the OP that explains the entire thing.

 

[The Technomancer]

still don't know what gamergate is either.

it is about women in videogames/the videogame industry?

is "gamegate" pro women, or are the sexist ones?
where do the feminists stand?

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. This became GamerGate, concerned with "ethics in game journalism"

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

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Wikipedia culture seems really weird and full of strange power plays and bureaucratic decision making.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...cyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.single.html

Here's an interesting article about it.

 

[GamerJM]

Then I guess you didn't really read the OP. Editors weren't banned for being feminists; they were banned for demonstrating an inability to be impartial.

No, I did read the OP, but I have legitimate issues when it comes to reading comprehension so I couldn't entirely understand what it was saying.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

If people are posting opinion and bias then they're absolutely ripe for banning on Wikipedia.
With that said I'd like to see what the feminist editors were posting to justify the ban on not just GG, but all gender related pages. To not show what was done to justify the ban, it is opening a can of worms where some people will deem it an act of "the patriarchy" silencing women, as well as ignoring a great tool for teaching (ie: How not to edit, ect.)

 

[FlyinJ]

Then I guess you didn't really read the OP. Editors weren't banned for being feminists; they were banned for demonstrating an inability to be impartial.

Can you please provide a link to evidence that these editors were not being impartial?

I've been scouring everything, and have not seen one shred of evidence that this was the case.

From everything I've read, they were banned for "war editing", which basically means that they were actively trying to correct the article which was being constantly filled with falsehoods.

This apparently raised a red flag with the Wiki admins, and resulted in a ban. I'm still trying to understand why removing falsehoods from an article too many times results in a ban... it seems that they were maybe getting angry and yelling at the people who were putting in all the false information and this is considered ban-worthy?

 

[A Link to the Past]

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.

Overly fictitious accounts? Why would people need to make things up about a movement that literally plotted to murder trans people?

 

[devilhawk]

The article in the OP indicates at least one was found "false-flagging" other gender related topics in order to make a side look worse. Seems reasonable to ban editors doing that.

 

[jakonovski]

Can you please provide a link to evidence that these editors were not being impartial?

I've been scouring everything, and have not seen one shred of evidence that this was the case.

From everything I've read, they were banned for "war editing", which basically means that they were actively trying to correct the article which was being constantly filled with falsehoods.

This apparently raised a red flag with the Wiki admins, and resulted in a ban. I'm still trying to understand why removing falsehoods from an article too many times results in a ban... it seems that they were maybe getting angry and yelling at the people who were putting in all the false information and this is considered ban-worthy?

Edit wars are just flame wars in disguise. It's no surprise that a site doesn't like them.

 

[Cybit]

Can you please provide a link to evidence that these editors were not being impartial?

I've been scouring everything, and have not seen one shred of evidence that this was the case.

From everything I've read, they were banned for "war editing", which basically means that they were actively trying to correct the article which was being constantly filled with falsehoods.

This apparently raised a red flag with the Wiki admins, and resulted in a ban. I'm still trying to understand why removing falsehoods from an article too many times results in a ban... it seems that they were maybe getting angry and yelling at the people who were putting in all the false information and this is considered ban-worthy?

They were primarily banned for being assholes in the talk pages, as well as having been sanctioned for edit warring in other related topics. You'll want to look at their previous infractions for many of them. Also, note, they're not banned from Wikipedia, they're banned from editing specific pages and/or specific topics.

 

[FlyinJ]

They were primarily banned for being assholes in the talk pages, as well as having been sanctioned for edit warring in other related topics. You'll want to look at their previous infractions for many of them. Also, note, they're not banned from Wikipedia, they're banned from editing specific pages and/or specific topics.

Then let's make this perfectly clear, because many people in this thread are spreading misinformation.

These editors were NOT banned for putting anti-GamerGate biased opinion into articles.

So, people, please stop saying this.

 

[HUELEN10]

The article in the OP indicates at least one was found "false-flagging" other gender related topics in order to make a side look worse. Seems reasonable to ban editors doing that.

Agreed. It is also important to note that not anti-gamer gate does not equate to pro-gamer gate. If I am understanding correctly, wiki is entirely in the right on this one.

 

[Frog-fu]

I'm not sure if it falls under Gamergate or not, but if it does, I stopped following any news on the whole "movement" around the time people were calling out writers at Kotaku for having undiscolosed financial/personal ties to developers whose games they were covering. When did it become about misogyn?

 

[Broseybrose]

Well, one good thing that came out of this thread is that a lot of people (me included) learned that "gamergate" is an actual issue that deserves attention. I had no idea it that the gamergate movement is about keeping the games industry a boy's club. Fuck that.

 

[FlyinJ]

The article in the OP indicates at least one was found "false-flagging" other gender related topics in order to make a side look worse. Seems reasonable to ban editors doing that.

I don't understand how this person wasn't banned immediately after they admitted to false-flagging. That's some really shady shit, and far worse than what I've read about what "war editing" entails.

 

[HUELEN10]

I'm not sure if it falls under Gamergate or not, but if it does, I stopped following any news on the whole "movement" around the time people were calling out writers at Kotaku for having undiscolosed financial/personal ties to developers whose games they were covering. when did it become about misogyn?

Depends on who you ask. Some people say it's never been about that, other day it's always been about that, and other still are somewhere in between.

 

[The Technomancer]

Depends on who you ask. Some people say it's never been about that, other day it's always been about that, and other still are somewhere in between.

The term was literally coined by a guy who was talking about the Zoe Quinn nonsense

It has factually always been about that

 

[Cyan]

I'm not sure if it falls under Gamergate or not, but if it does, I stopped following any news on the whole "movement" around the time people were calling out writers at Kotaku for having undiscolosed financial/personal ties to developers whose games they were covering. When did it become about misogyn?

Probably somewhere around the time of these posts:

What? #GamerGate is not about Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn, and it's not certainly not misogyny drive hate-speech by "petulant manchildren" that don't want to "share" their toys. It's about transparent, honest and, above all, ethical journalism.

It's not my intent to be disingenuous though I understand that's what it looks like, my bad. I have stated that here are people like this on both sides though, and I just wanted to point to just one example of seemingly countless as the current narrative is that all proponents of #GamerGate are misogynists.

Then I find it interesting you're so open to dismissing this as the findings of a misogynistic woman. What about the other numerous women in support of #GamerGate that have spoken out against detractors and go ignored because they don't fit the narrative that is being spun, like this woman for example? I might be misunderstanding you here, so tell me if I am.

Just to put it out there, one of my heroes in this whole #GamerGate affair, is Christina H. Sommers, a self-described equity feminist who has spoken out against the flagrant accusations of misogyny. Her twitter responses thus far have been completely on point.



Name one of that has demonstrated contempt for or prejudice against women. Everything is a conspiracy until it's a scandal.

10 - An attack on Zoe Quinn for reprehensible behaviour is not an attack on her gender. It's that kind of thinking that has led to broad-brushing generalisations of gamers. We're all bigots and misogynists for having a problem with her action? Come now.
9 - I was ambivalent about this point, I'll admit. Death threats may be common but should never be trivialised.
8 - It's diverse because gamers are diverse and you are wilfully ignorant if you think it's only white, straight males that are outraged.
7 - It's not a joke since that petition came out addressing all gamers as a whole to stop sending death threats, when that is the doing of a minority.
4 - Your first mistake is to assume they're misogynists in the first place.
1 - Did you read his entire critique and what it has to do with #GamerGate?

 

[Zomba13]

Probably somewhere around the time of these posts:

lol. It's always funny seeing these kinds of posters.


On topic, I get banning people for inserting their bias into articles when they should be as unbiased as possible but in this case, where the "pro-GG" side is mostly people not as invested in Wikipedia and just wanting more publicity for Gamergate to put on their "Things we are totally good at and are reasons why we are winning this war" list, then it seems a bit unfair because of course they won't be inserting certain biases because there wouldn't really be any prior to that article. And especially in the case of GG where a large amount of things they put out to appear "unbiased" and not totally horrible scum are lies or insane leaps of logic and comprehension tot he wrong conclusion. Correcting those lies will inherently lead back to feminism or misogyny due to gamergate being gamergate.

To be honest though I'd much prefer if the page was just deleted and not allowed or maybe only edited by like, super long time editors to prevent edit wars that end up looking like little kids fighting on the playground.

 

[AlexMogil]

It's the gaming side thread all over again. Every time. I don't understand it. It's like ripping the needle off the record.

 

[FlyinJ]

I'm amazed there isn't a meme-gif of the "just asking questions" guy at this point.

 

[MIMIC]

still don't know what gamergate is either.

it is about women in videogames/the videogame industry?

is "gamegate" pro women, or are the sexist ones?
where do the feminists stand?

I think someone explained it to me a few months ago. And here I am, thinking "WTF is Gamergate again?"

 

[Frog-fu]

Probably somewhere around the time of these posts:

I had genuinely actually forgotten about all that. Hard to believe, but truthfully. I was fuzzy actually on what was Gamergate and what was that whole Quinnspiracy debacle. I remember following the twitter feed on that for a day or two and accusations of misogyn didn't seem to amount to much back then hence why I'm asking now why it's so definitively associated with it.

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

still don't know what gamergate is either.

it is about women in videogames/the videogame industry?

is "gamegate" pro women, or are the sexist ones?
where do the feminists stand?

It's stuff like this that make me want to see separate terms established for the controversy ("#Gamergate") and those pushing said controversy ("the Gamergate movement," as I like to call them in my head).

The Gamergate movement, or "Gators" as others call them, are the anti-feminist ones.

 

[BanGy.nz]

From my prospective GamerGate is about driving progressive voices (especially women) out of the industry under the guise of "Ethics".

 

[Stinkles]

Probably somewhere around the time of these posts:

Oh snapplecopter.

 

[FlyinJ]

I had genuinely actually forgotten about all that. Hard to believe, but truthfully. I was fuzzy actually on what was Gamergate and what was that whole Quinnspiracy debacle. I remember following the twitter feed on that for a day or two and accusations of misogyn didn't seem to amount to much back then hence why I'm asking now why it's so definitively associated with it.

That's nuts! You even had a personal hero in the movement!

It's cool though, man... I forget about my heroes all the time.

 

[A Link to the Past]

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.

Wikipedia operates on common sense consensus. You ever notice how in Ocarina of Time, it says this?:

"Ocarina of Time was released to universal critical acclaim and strong commercial success worldwide."

This is not cited, and the reason why it is not cited is because of the fact that there are 8 billion sources that give it 24/10 reviews. I don't need to cite it, because it would be redundant in light of the fact that all of the sources are available for you to peruse.

On the other hand, let's see how this applies with GamerGate. How many noteworthy journalists have been positive about it? Reliable sources? Virtually everyone who has commented on it that can be considered reliable sources for use on Wikipedia have identified it as a harassment group. As such, editors extrapolate from the overwhelming journalistic consensus on GamerGate and sum up the movement based only on reliable sources. These editors are not adding their opinions to the article, they are making the common sense declaration of "all reliable sources think x". We don't need a citation to say that the sky is blue because this is common sense knowledge. The citation is "literally go outside." We don't need a citation on GamerGate's status as a shitty group because all of the sources used in the article corroborate that idea.

 

[Brakke]

I had genuinely actually forgotten about all that. Hard to believe, but truthfully. I was fuzzy actually on what was Gamergate and what was that whole Quinnspiracy debacle. I remember following the twitter feed on that for a day or two and accusations of misogyn didn't seem to amount to much back then hence why I'm asking now why it's so definitively associated with it.

but y should anybody engage with u

if

ur just gunna forget what u get told tho

 

[FlyinJ]

Wikipedia operates on common sense consensus. You ever notice how in Ocarina of Time, it says this?:

"Ocarina of Time was released to universal critical acclaim and strong commercial success worldwide."

This is not cited, and the reason why it is not cited is because of the fact that there are 8 billion sources that give it 24/10 reviews. I don't need to cite it, because it would be redundant in light of the fact that all of the sources are available for you to peruse.

On the other hand, let's see how this applies with GamerGate. How many noteworthy journalists have been positive about it? Reliable sources? Virtually everyone who has commented on it that can be considered reliable sources for use on Wikipedia have identified it as a harassment group. As such, editors extrapolate from the overwhelming journalistic consensus on GamerGate and sum up the movement based only on reliable sources. These editors are not adding their opinions to the article, they are making the common sense declaration of "all reliable sources think x". We don't need a citation to say that the sky is blue because this is common sense knowledge. The citation is "literally go outside." We don't need a citation on GamerGate's status as a shitty group because all of the sources used in the article corroborate that idea.

You do realize that this is entirely beside the point of this topic because none of the editors were banned for putting "un-cited" or "anti-gamergate bias" into the article, right?

I mean, it's a good point and all, but it's getting my goat that we are even entertaining a rebuttal to the people in this thread that are saying that the bans were because the editors were biased.

 

[Vermillion]

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.

I'm absolutely fine with this.

 

[GYODX]

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 ucenters 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.

Down with impartiality in encyclopedias.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The GamerGate movement is a poorly managed and disgusied hate group. They is no "pro" way to show rancid shit.

I don't always laud the first post, but when I do, it's for good reason.

Also kid of surprised given Jimmy Wales jousting with GG

It's also reassuring (?) that the posters trying to downplay how fucked Gamergate is or say both sides are bad, etc. are the usual suspects denying racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry. Would suck if any posters I respected though Gamergate was anything more than bullshit

 

[A Link to the Past]

You do realize that this is entirely beside the point of this topic because none of the editors were banned for putting "un-cited" or "anti-gamergate bias" into the article, right?

I mean, it's a good point and all, but it's getting my goat that we are even entertaining a rebuttal to the people in this thread that are saying that the bans were because the editors were biased.

I get that, it's just been a general thorn in my side when people say this.

 

[Alcoremortis]

Whenever someone says that there are "two sides" to GamerGate, my brain goes "Should women be allowed to have opinions on the internet without receiving death and rape threats? Let's hear both sides!"

 

[RockTurtle]

Whenever someone says that there are "two sides" to GamerGate, my brain goes "Should women be allowed to have opinions on the internet without receiving death and rape threats? Let's hear both sides!"

you are right, there are multiple sides!

but its much easier to lump everyone on the "hate all womenz" raffle daffle to make it easier to dismiss

 

[A Link to the Past]

you are right, there are multiple sides!

but its much easier to lump everyone on the "hate all womenz" raffle daffle to make it easier to dismiss

If you join a misogynistic hate group, you cannot dissociate for as long as you are a member.

 

[Ryulong]

Hey, I've been out and about today so I missed the Guardian article and all this shit. I don't know what you guys want to know from someone on the inside but whatever. I'm just kinda bummed that Greasy Grimy Gopher Guts might get me banned from the one hobby I've kept at for nearly 10 years.

 

[TheSaddestSort]

Probably somewhere around the time of these posts:

Welp, that's quite the metaphorical paper trail.

 

[mugwhump]

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.

the politics of wikipedia are too complicated for me

edit: wait what if they were double-reverse-pretending

 

[Yoda]

Wikipedia shouldn't allow any editing which has a political agenda behind it, whatever written should be as object and impartial as humanly possible.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Wikipedia shouldn't allow any editing which has a political agenda behind it, whatever written should be as object and impartial as humanly possible.

That doesn't make sense. A political agenda is only relevant if you can demonstrate that it is influencing their objectivity in a situation. I mean, most people who edit articles about gender/sexuality probably have a relevant political agenda. As far as I can see, there is no political agenda behind this.

 

[Yoda]

That doesn't make sense. A political agenda is only relevant if you can demonstrate that it is influencing their objectivity in a situation. I mean, most people who edit articles about gender/sexuality probably have a relevant political agenda. As far as I can see, there is no political agenda behind this.

If they are trying to frame the argument in a way which completely excludes a competing point of view than yes, it isn't impartial and doesn't have a place in a Wikipedia article.

 

[The Albatross]

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.

Then just a simple question because I *honestly* can never tell:

- Is a GamerGater someone who complains about ethics in videogame journalism (e.g., the circle-jerk nature of videogame companies and journalists), or is it someone who complains about how women are treated in the videogame industry?

Or is it neither of those two things?

(and an extension of that, if you are Pro-GamerGate, are you Pro-ethics in journalism people or for being against sexism in the videogame industry?)

I pretty much avoided the topic because I noticed early on that people who had strong opinions on it here were getting banned, and so it was a topic I just purposely avoided and didn't bother with. It also seemed like most of the threads on Gaf were "if you don't have this opinion, then you're not allowed to discuss this, and you'll be banned," so I didn't develop an opinion on it, didn't read up on it, didn't enter the 100+ page threads, and now when I do look into it, it's developed so much into such a long story involving so many different characters, allegations, media organizations, and so on. Like, I'll look for the bad guy, and I'll see some people being sexist/disgusting, and think, well, those are the bad guys (assume they would be the people getting banned from Wikipedia); and then I'll see game journalists taking a holier than thou approach about their own industry, and then I'll think, well, the game journalists are the bad guys... And then I have *no* idea where some people fit into it.

Also it's confusing because your second paragraph does not make sense to someone who doesn't know much about who is pro/anti or what it is. It's like saying, "to understand the flagletite movement all you need to know is that the anti-flagletites actions are irrelevant because everybody on the anti-flagletite side knows about the flagletite agenda." And it's like "wut" if you don't know what a flagletite is.

*edit*

I read through the thread and is this right: GamerGaters/Pro-GamerGate are the same thing, and they are people who think that there's something wrong with videogame journalism and this seems motivated by that girl sleeping with someone. AntiGamerGate people are people who think that GamerGater's are lashing out at the videogame journalism crowd as a cover/guise to be misogynistic.

 

[Alcoremortis]

you are right, there are multiple sides!

but its much easier to lump everyone on the "hate all womenz" raffle daffle to make it easier to dismiss

Nah, it's never hating all women. It's just hating all women who don't toe the party line.

The women who do are raised up on pedestals and praised for having the good sense to know their place in society.