Support NeoGAF

[Arksy]

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

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

I'm a political left-winger, so I'm by definition a Stalinist?

I'm a conservative, so I must by definition associate myself with Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders?

I'm an animal rights activist, so I agree with everything PETA does by default?

I'm a Muslim, so therefore I'm on the side of terrorism?

I'm a Christian, I'm responsible for the Westboro Batist Church?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

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.

To put it very simply, Gamergaters claim to be fighting for ethics in games journalism, yet focus almost exclusively on women in the games industry, almost exclusively on the indie side and almost none of whom are journalists. While AAA bullshit has been egregiously going on even since Gamergate started, it's proponents concern themselves with the sex lives and finances of indie devs and critics, harassing them in all available venues and recently trying to SWAT them.

It's all documented and easy to find out about, but due to general apathy like what you can see in this thread, proponents will deny everything and feel unopposed by society at large, emboldening them further. Finally, you have prominent YouTubers and public figures who, while largely ignorant and dismissive of video games in general, have found a sweet spot monetizing hate and whip up the gullible with allegations and hit pieces of Gamergate targets.

All very disgusting.

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

I'm a political left-winger, so I'm by definition a Stalinist?

I'm a conservative, so I must by definition associate myself with Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders?

I'm an animal rights activist, so I agree with everything PETA does by default?

I'm a muslim, so therefore I'm on the side of terrorism?

There's a difference between sharing some beliefs or an ideology with others and vocally aligning yourself with a specific group.

But I suppose someone who would use the time honored Muslim/terrorist analogy wouldn't understand that anyway

 

[A Link to the Past]

This is GamerGate (TW: suicide, transphobia, and generally gross shit)

https://anonimg.com/img/c5bc75d9d913da27d6ce4c2f6b805bcb.jpeg

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 competing point of view is from a hate group and is trying to suggest sources like TheRalphRetort and Breitbart.

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

I'm a political left-winger, so I'm by definition a Stalinist?

I'm a conservative, so I must by definition associate myself with Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders?

I'm an animal rights activist, so I agree with everything PETA does by default?

I'm a muslim, so therefore I'm on the side of terrorism?

You're an awful person. Being a part of a specific hate group is not being an animal rights activist. If you're a part of PETA, then you get everything that comes with it. If you're Muslim, then you don't have to answer for ISIS. But if you're in ISIS, you DO have to answer for it. Being a part of GamerGate entails that you answer for all of the horrible things that it does, or leave the group. Your post would be apt if I had said that people who wanted to discuss ethical issues in the video game industry were associated with GamerGate (even though GG isn't about that, but whatever).

Seriously, you can fuck off before you try to compare being a Muslim to being a member of a hate group.

 

[Forkball]

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.

One of my favorite Wikipedia edit wars was about Wario Land Shake It! A seemingly typical article for a B-tier Nintendo title, right? Nope, check out the talk page. If you want the tl;dr version, the game has two different English names: Wario Land The Shake Dimension in EU and Wario Land Shake It in the US. For a long time, the Wikipedia title went by the EU name, which many people had issues with since most other games aren't titled after the EU version, ergo it was hard to find. One editor (A Link to the Past, whom someone told me is actually a GAFfer) basically stonewalls the issue FOR YEARS giving the most semantic and loopholey reasons possible. Eventually, the name was changed to the US title, in the most hollow victory of all time.

As for Gamergate, there's nothing wrong with demanding better ethics and transparency in video games journalism. However, they have so many marks against them that any honest intent is pretty much ignored due to their track record. Also if they really cared about ethics in games journalism, this movement would have started two years ago when a Eurogamer writer was threatened with legal action when he noted the business relationship between another writer and Square Enix (Doritosgate).

Their subreddit is a strange mix of "someone didn't cite their source!" and "This lady's a bitch."

 

[jstripes]

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

I'm a political left-winger, so I'm by definition a Stalinist?

I'm a conservative, so I must by definition associate myself with Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders?

I'm an animal rights activist, so I agree with everything PETA does by default?

I'm a Muslim, so therefore I'm on the side of terrorism?

I'm a Christian, I'm responsible for the Westboro Batist Church?

Wow. What an asinine response.

#GamerGate has a name. It's specific. It's not some vague notion as "left wing politically".

Now, if you said you were a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, you'd be associated with Stalin.

 

[squidyj]

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.

seems like jumping to conclusions is the premise of this thread IMO.

 

[Arksy]

You're an awful person. Being a part of a specific hate group is not being an animal rights activist. If you're a part of PETA, then you get everything that comes with it. If you're Muslim, then you don't have to answer for ISIS. But if you're in ISIS, you DO have to answer for it. Being a part of GamerGate entails that you answer for all of the horrible things that it does, or leave the group. Your post would be apt if I had said that people who wanted to discuss ethical issues in the video game industry were associated with GamerGate (even though GG isn't about that, but whatever).

Seriously, you can fuck off before you try to compare being a Muslim to being a member of a hate group.

No because that's still bullshit.

I can be a card carrying member of the republican party, hell I can be a congressman and still disagree with what Todd Akin said, and not be responsible for it.

I can be a member of the NRA and disagree with their lobbying practices.

etc, millions of examples. Associating me with any of those for merely being a member is a logical fallacy by definition.

 

[A Link to the Past]

No because that's still bullshit.

I can be a card carrying member of the republican party, hell I can be a congressman and still disagree with what Todd Akin said, and not be responsible for it.

I can be a member of the NRA and disagree with their lobbying practices.

etc, millions of examples.

Yes or no

is the NRA trying to murder trans people

NRA's a lot better an example, but the question of why you'd still be a member of a group while disagreeing with multiple acts of attempted murder is a question asked of people who are utter scum.

In the KKK? You're a fuckhead. In GamerGate? You're a fuckhead. In ISI? You're a fuckhead. Sorry if you want to be a member of a terrorist group and not have to answer for it.

 

[jstripes]

No because that's still bullshit.

I can be a card carrying member of the republican party, hell I can be a congressman and still disagree with what Todd Akin said, and not be responsible for it.

I can be a member of the NRA and disagree with their lobbying practices.

etc, millions of examples.

Was the Republican party born to harass people?

Was the NRA born to harass people?

GamerGate was born to harass people. And continues to harass people. (But it's done anonymously. So it's "not us".)

 

[Arksy]

Was the Republican party born to harass people?

Was the NRA born to harass people?

GamerGate was born to harass people. And continues to harass people. (But it's done anonymously. So it's "not us".)

Yes or no

is the NRA trying to murder trans people

NRA's a lot better an example, but the question of why you'd still be a member of a group while disagreeing with multiple acts of attempted murder is a question asked of people who are utter scum.

In the KKK? You're a fuckhead. In GamerGate? You're a fuckhead. In ISI? You're a fuckhead. Sorry if you want to be a member of a terrorist group and not have to answer for it.

You're talking about a matter of degree, which while important for other reasons, doesn't necessarily by implication burden you with responsibility. You can argue to hell and back that paying your NRA membership enables their bullshit lobbying practices, and you can argue to hell and back the other way saying that if I wanted to reform it I can only do it from the inside. Either way, it's pretty absurd to say that a political or action group are a bunch of drones who must all be equally good or evil based on the transient outcomes of a group.

I don't even know if GamerGate is even a group. Is it? Sure, it might look that way, but can someone go become a member of GamerGate in the same way that you can become a member of the NRA (through forms and fees) or ISIS (through a pledge). Is there a GamerGate manifesto? Is there a list of objectives? Or is it sporadic pockets of people arguing similar things? Is it the transient result of a lot of angry idiots behind computer screens? Sure, it's obvious that a bunch of individuals agreed to group up to coordinate and conduct certain campaigns of sustained harassment. However I don't think that really gives it formal 'group' status.

 

[Kinyou]

This is GamerGate (TW: suicide, transphobia, and generally gross shit)

https://anonimg.com/img/c5bc75d9d913da27d6ce4c2f6b805bcb.jpeg

Any context? Like how is this related to gamer gate and not just one of the chan boards?

 

[AlexMogil]

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.

Ok wait.

You're that guy?'

 

[Yoda]

This is GamerGate (TW: suicide, transphobia, and generally gross shit)

https://anonimg.com/img/c5bc75d9d913da27d6ce4c2f6b805bcb.jpeg



The competing point of view is from a hate group and is trying to suggest sources like TheRalphRetort and Breitbart.



You're an awful person. Being a part of a specific hate group is not being an animal rights activist. If you're a part of PETA, then you get everything that comes with it. If you're Muslim, then you don't have to answer for ISIS. But if you're in ISIS, you DO have to answer for it. Being a part of GamerGate entails that you answer for all of the horrible things that it does, or leave the group. Your post would be apt if I had said that people who wanted to discuss ethical issues in the video game industry were associated with GamerGate (even though GG isn't about that, but whatever).

Seriously, you can fuck off before you try to compare being a Muslim to being a member of a hate group.

Having an opposing view doesn't make you a part of a hate-group, there being extremists on the opposing side of the argument doesn't mean you aren't allowed to have an opinion which isn't in-line with the opposition, its a zero-sum argument. Being a republican doesn't mean you are a white-supremacist, despite there having been white-supremacist republicans in the past.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Any context? Like how is this related to gamer gate and not just one of the chan boards?

It's the "official board" for GamerGate (8chan). and similar attempts were made under the hashtag and on KiA (for example, people have suggested befriending trans people and then posting triggering photos to make them kill themselves). Very recently, GamerGate hijacked #TransWomenAreWomen and #TransMenAreMen and spammed them both with pornography.

Having an opposing view doesn't make you a part of a hate-group, there being extremists on the opposing side of the argument doesn't mean you aren't allowed to have an opinion which isn't in-line with the opposition, its a zero-sum argument. Being a republican doesn't mean you are a white-supremacist, despite there having been white-supremacist republicans in the past.

Being a GamerGater makes you a GamerGater. Sorry. If you don't want to be in a hate group, you kind of have to not associate as a member of that hate group. Being in ISIS makes you a member of a terrorist group, why should GGers get a free pass to avoid having to answer for their own group's actions?

Also, question: was the Republican party started with the intention of harassing people?

You're talking about a matter of degree, which while important for other reasons, doesn't necessarily by implication burden you with responsibility. You can argue to hell and back that paying your NRA membership enables their bullshit lobbying practices, and you can argue to hell and back the other way saying that if I wanted to reform it I can only do it from the inside. Either way, it's pretty absurd to say that a political or action group are a bunch of drones who must all be equally good or evil based on the transient outcomes of a group.

I don't even know if GamerGate is even a group. Is it? Sure, it might look that way, but can someone go become a member of GamerGate in the same way that you can become a member of the NRA (through forms and fees) or ISIS (through a pledge). Is there a GamerGate manifesto? Is there a list of objectives? Or is it sporadic pockets of people arguing similar things? Is it the transient result of a lot of angry idiots behind computer screens? Sure, it's obvious that a bunch of individuals agreed to group up to coordinate and conduct certain campaigns of sustained harassment. However I don't think that really gives it formal 'group' status.

Right now, all I can say is that you're either a bullshitting GGer, or you're an ass who is wasting my time debating a topic you don't understand.

 

[Kinyou]

It's the "official board" for GamerGate (8chan). and similar attempts were made under the hashtag and on KiA (for example, people have suggested befriending trans people and then posting triggering photos to make them kill themselves). Very recently, GamerGate hijacked #TransWomenAreWomen and #TransMenAreMen and spammed them both with pornography.

Ah, I see. Not really familiar with 8chan. Sounds like that's where people go who are even too vile for 4chan

 

[A Link to the Past]

Ah, I see. Not really familiar with 8chan. Sounds like that's where people go who are even too vile for 4chan

It's literally what happened, haha. 4chan banned GG discussion, so someone opened a website to facilitate it. Other discussions that happen on 8chan include child erotica and SWATting.

 

[Ryulong]

Ok wait.

You're that guy?'

I made it into the 2nd official thread before it got closed.

 

[Yoda]

It's the "official board" for GamerGate (8chan). and similar attempts were made under the hashtag and on KiA (for example, people have suggested befriending trans people and then posting triggering photos to make them kill themselves). Very recently, GamerGate hijacked #TransWomenAreWomen and #TransMenAreMen and spammed them both with pornography.



Being a GamerGater makes you a GamerGater. Sorry. If you don't want to be in a hate group, you kind of have to not associate as a member of that hate group. Being in ISIS makes you a member of a terrorist group, why should GGers get a free pass to avoid having to answer for their own group's actions?

Also, question: was the Republican party started with the intention of harassing people?



Right now, all I can say is that you're either a bullshitting GGer, or you're an ass who is wasting my time debating a topic you don't understand.

That analogy isn't relevant here, if the issue affects said "gamer" and they feel it isn't a valid portrayal of the industry they take part in they are entitled to their own opinion, just because there are assholes who exploit the situation to troll doesn't mean they are to stay silent or accept what the opposing view which they don't believe.

Even if the "anti GG" holds the high moral ground so to speak (which is a subjective definition) that doesn't excuse (some of them) from trying to disenfranchise the opposition. From how I read the article they haven't banned the concept of changing the subject material or how its presented entirely, simply banned those engaged in non-stop edits.

Finally, Wikipedia is not where you go to engage in political issues. There are hundreds of others avenues to reach people and let your voice be heard. An online encyclopedia certainly isn't going to be worth any less because it hasn't fully documented an internet outcry from late 2014.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The people you call trolls are the people who made the movement, and the people who are most active in the movement.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The people you call trolls are the people who made the movement, and the people who are most active in the movement.

Yes; for some reason the only people I see using the hashtag in Gamergate are the ones actively harassing people.

If the hashtag started to be included in in-depth investigations into unethical journalism and industry practices, then Gaters might have a leg to stand on...

In the mean time, you don't get to throw in with a group like this and then complain about being painted with a broad brush. You align with them and your willingly sticking a paint-covered brush down your own fucking throat.

 

[Yoda]

The people you call trolls are the people who made the movement, and the people who are most active in the movement.

Right, but its not Wikipedia's job to condemn them, nor is it the average consumer of gaming's job to condemn them via changing their own opinion on the matter. If said gamer believes there is rampant sexism that is harming other people/a group then I'll agree if given the opportunity they should speak out. As far as Wikipedia is concerned there are two sides to the issue and SPECIFICALLY ON THE WEBSITE one side was abusing the system for their own ends. Given that is against ToS they were banned. The existence of obnoxious assholes on one side of a debate which includes thousands doesn't make said side wrong by default.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Right, but its not Wikipedia's job to condemn them, nor is it the average consumer of gaming's job to condemn them via changing their own opinion on the matter. If said gamer believes there is rampant sexism that is harming other people/a group then I'll agree if given the opportunity they should speak out. As far as Wikipedia is concerned there are two sides to the issue and SPECIFICALLY ON THE WEBSITE one side was abusing the system for their own ends. Given that is against ToS they were banned. The existence of obnoxious assholes on one side of a debate which includes thousands doesn't make said side wrong by default.

It's Wikipedia's job to use even the most base amount of sense that one of the sides is citing blacklisted websites.

 

[Kinyou]

It's literally what happened, haha. 4chan banned GG discussion, so someone opened a website to facilitate it. Other discussions that happen on 8chan include child erotica and SWATting.

Just read up on it on wikipedia. Pretty insane. That Gamergaters migrated over to a board like this says more than a thousand words.

 

[The Adder]

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

I'm a political left-winger, so I'm by definition a Stalinist?

I'm a conservative, so I must by definition associate myself with Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders?

I'm an animal rights activist, so I agree with everything PETA does by default?

I'm a Muslim, so therefore I'm on the side of terrorism?

I'm a Christian, I'm responsible for the Westboro Batist Church?

If you're in the KKK you're a cross burner regardless of if you've ever done it yourself.

 

[DrSlek]

Reading the article, it seems the editors banned may have had somewhat of a toxic history when trying to get their point across on other controversial articles.

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.

 

[lednerg]

I've read a bunch of GamerGate articles and blog posts, but it's this one posted on Gamasutra, a gaming industry site, which encapsulates everything for me the best. It should be noted that GamerGaters have been so incensed over Gamasutra's coverage of the topic that they were able to get Intel to stop advertising on the site for a while.

 

[Oersted]

I've read a bunch of GamerGate articles and blog posts, but it's this one posted on Gamasutra, a gaming industry site, which encapsulates everything for me the best. It should be noted that GamerGaters have been so incensed over Gamasutra's coverage of the topic that they were able to get Intel to stop advertising on the site for a while.

And now Intel supports Anti-harrasment groups with 300 million dollars. Pretty cool that they learned.

Edit:

Wait what?

good

i bet these terrible sjws believe they are above a Wikipedia banning, but they aren't

Are you for real dude?

 

[Ryulong]

Reading the article, it seems the editors banned may have had somewhat of a toxic history when trying to get their point across on other controversial articles.

Let me clarify this point that keeps coming up: Tarc was insincerely being a transphobic asshole to make a point during the whole debacle that came about due to the dispute over what the article on Manning should be titled.

 

[lednerg]

And now Intel supports Anti-harrasment groups with 300 million dollars. Pretty cool that they learned.

I don't really care about Intel or what their deal is, I only mentioned it because it kept coming up on Google and felt it was worth mentioning for the purpose of full disclosure. The article itself is far more interesting than any of that shit.

 

[Replicant]

At this point, if you are trying to make a point about sexism or ethics in journalism, wouldn't it be better to distance yourself away from GamingGate?

Whatever it was, it has turned into incoherent mess that served no purpose to anyone at this point in time.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Let me clarify this point that keeps coming up: Tarc was insincerely being a transphobic asshole to make a point during the whole debacle that came about due to the dispute over what the article on Manning should be titled.

That honestly does not sound like a good idea by any stretch.

 

[lednerg]

At this point, if you are trying to make a point about sexism or ethics in journalism, wouldn't it be better to distance yourself away from GamingGate?

Whatever it was, it has turned into incoherent mess that served no purpose to anyone at this point in time.

That's been my take on it. There's absolutely no need for me to conflate my opinion of feminism with my opinion of gaming journalism.

 

[AlexMogil]

Let me clarify this point that keeps coming up: Tarc was insincerely being a transphobic asshole to make a point during the whole debacle that came about due to the dispute over what the article on Manning should be titled.

I'm not enough inside baseball to understand this.

 

[Ryulong]

That honestly does not sound like a good idea by any stretch.

I never said it was.

I'm not enough inside baseball to understand this.

I don't understand it either. I stayed away from that shit when it was going on.

EDIT: They made this table to tally the votes on the various proposals against me and I can't for the life of me understand it.

5.1 is "topic banned", 5.2 is "other topics restriction", 5.3 is "full site ban", 5.4 is "this is your final warning", 5.5 is "1 revert restriction" and I know 1 is "first choice", o is "oppose", and "a" is abstain but I don't know how the fuck they calculated those votes. Waiting for a clarification but I'm still confused as hell.

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

yknow its blatantly obvious that pro-gamergate is way more vile than anti-gamergate, but both sides seem to behave as if the apex of activism is posting as many rants on twitter as possible. About Video Games.

it seriously makes me wonder if these people realize the internet is not real life. Listen to an avid warrior for either side and you'd think this was the greatest cultural battle of our generation.

About
Video
Games

at best this is pathetic and at worst its actively destructive to activism movements that result in concrete change. so you'll have to forgive me if i just call both sides idiots on the internet.

 

[riotous]

Is there a summary of the "why" behind the feminists being banned?

Was their behavior against the rules?

 

[Slackbladder]

Oh well, another site on my shitlist.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I thought after #GG made 8chan their HQ and 8chan was exposed for being very willing to host child porn that people would stop with the "but I'm just asking questions."

#GG is just a reactionary movement about hating women and especially trans women. It's hard to see how something steeped in so much conservative attitude continues despite an association with child abuse.

I have no idea what's going on with the Wikipedia editing in particular.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Is there a summary of the "why" behind the feminists being banned?

Was their behavior against the rules?

There are a few stories, the most common being that, among other things, one of the editors pretended to be transphobic and said very hateful things in order to discredit anyone on the opposite side of an argument about whether Chelsea Manning's article should remain "Bradley Manning." And that this was part of an overall pattern of engaging in edit wars. Conflicting information has been put forward, but that seems to be the consensus.

Also, on #GG, if you were actually concerned with the ethical issues of gaming journalism, wouldn't you want to focus on something like the fact that the vast majority of advertising revenue for gaming news entities comes from game publishers and devs? Or is that just the ultimate proof that #GG has absolutely nothing to do with "ethics in games journalism?"

 

[blame space]

wikipedia has voted on neogaf's relevancy 4 times

 

[tkscz]

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.

It deals with the over all issue with the argument. There is a good side to both GG and Anti-GG that, if got together, would come up with an agreement on what to do about this issue, however, everyone will rush to and point out the worst of both sides, including NeoGaf. Notice most conversations will point out the worst, sometimes fabricate, facts about both sides, but the good of each side will be passed over in order to make the other side look bad. This is why I stay out of it. It has nothing to do with games, journalism, feminism, or fairness in my eyes. Just a old school playground fight.

As for what happened on Wikipedia, good. It banned both sides, and even though the GG bans aren't popular editor accounts, it shows an example of not causing fights over Wikipedia articles.

 

[riotous]

There are a few stories, the most common being that, among other things, one of the editors pretended to be transphobic and said very hateful things in order to discredit anyone on the opposite side of an argument about whether Chelsea Manning's article should remain "Bradley Manning." And that this was part of an overall pattern of engaging in edit wars. Conflicting information has been put forward, but that seems to be the consensus.

It sucks if good people were angered enough to go that far; but I can't really blame wiki if that was the type of behavior they were engaging in.

 

[timetokill]

Is there a summary of the "why" behind the feminists being banned?

Was their behavior against the rules?

As far as I can tell (read through a few things) ... there was a lot of angry behavior behind the scenes by both "sides" and a general lack of interest in objectivity and more about pushing one agenda or another. Just general behavior that is looked down upon on Wikipedia.

 

[tonysidaway]

I'm caught up in the middle of this, so my take on it may seem a little strange to outsiders.

No, I don't think Arbcom has ever come close to ruling in favour of Gamergate. While some of those topic-banned were opposed to Gamergate, that was not why they're now being excluded from the area. They will be replaced by other editors who will drift in.

Faced with the same reliable sources, our task will remain to ensure that the article accurately and proportionately represents what those sources say. Since reliable sources represent Gamergate as a pretty frightening sequence of attacks on women in gaming on pretexts that don't stand up to the light of day, that's what our article will say.

Meanwhile Arbcom has endorsed and strengthened the sanctions regime that has, for months now, prevented Gamergate tactics working on Wikipedia.

It would be unfair to single out the individuals sanctioned by Arbcom, but I have no major objection to the decision. Some of those facing site bans have presented a problem for a while, in multiple arbitration cases. Being on the "right side" doesn't absolve editors from the conduct rules.

The guy who shows up to fight the good fight isn't much of a help when what you're actually trying to do is just work with others irrespective of personal beliefs to collaborate in writing an accurate encyclopaedia entry.

 

[ClayKavalier]

Now I won't feel so guilty for not donating the next time they do a drive.

Spoiler

Is what I would say if I had visited Wikipedia once since earning my bachelors.

 

[SkyOdin]

yknow its blatantly obvious that pro-gamergate is way more vile than anti-gamergate, but both sides seem to behave as if the apex of activism is posting as many rants on twitter as possible. About Video Games.

it seriously makes me wonder if these people realize the internet is not real life. Listen to an avid warrior for either side and you'd think this was the greatest cultural battle of our generation.

About
Video
Games

at best this is pathetic and at worst its actively destructive to activism movements that result in concrete change. so you'll have to forgive me if i just call both sides idiots on the internet.

But the internet is real life, in so far as that it is nothing more than a medium for real people to have discussions. It's not like the internet magically wipes our memories of what we read here when we turn our computers off. It is just as real as an other discussion, and as likely to influence people as a newspaper or something.

Besides, this has gone a bit past twitter rants, at least on the part of GamerGate. There are a lot of reports of threatening phone calls to harassment victim's homes and letters threatening mass shootings that directly reference previous (actually carried out) mass shootings that targeted feminists. Some of the women that GamerGate has targeted have literally fled their homes for fear of their lives. So it is a little more than twitter rants.

 

[charlequin]

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.

Just because your screen name is The Albatross doesn't mean we're gonna pre-chew your food. It's a complicated, messy issue, and if you don't want to take the most basic explanation ("it's a bitter sexist hate mob that wants to keep women out of gaming, disguised as an ethics movement") at face value then you're gonna need to read some of the background material.

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

But the internet is real life, in so far as that it is nothing more than a medium for real people to have discussions. It's not like the internet magically wipes our memories of what we read here when we turn our computers off. It is just as real as an other discussion, and as likely to influence people as a newspaper or something.

Besides, this has gone a bit past twitter rants, at least on the part of GamerGate. There are a lot of reports of threatening phone calls to harassment victim's homes and letters threatening mass shootings that directly reference previous (actually carried out) mass shootings that targeted feminists. Some of the women that GamerGate has targeted have literally fled their homes for fear of their lives. So it is a little more than twitter rants.

hey like i said GG is way more vile. and yeah that sucks what happened to them, but i gotta disagree with your internet is real life point.

activity on the internet is only valuable as a precursor to activity offline. Otherwise you end up with this disconnected space thats only purpose is for setting up a social hierarchy amongst like-minded people. you see alot of that in the more extreme corners of tumblr and leftist organizations of yore.

to be clear, i come from the perspective of raising awareness in and of itself is worthless. The internet can be a tool for organization, but it has to be a concrete goal in mind, otherwise you end up with an echo chamber more concerned with making ice burns than the struggle.

 

[SkyOdin]

hey like i said GG is way more vile. and yeah that sucks what happened to them, but i gotta disagree with your internet is real life point.

activity on the internet is only valuable as a precursor to activity offline. Otherwise you end up with this disconnected space thats only purpose is for setting up a social hierarchy amongst like-minded people. you see alot of that in the more extreme corners of tumblr and leftist organizations of yore.

to be clear, i come from the perspective of raising awareness in and of itself is worthless. The internet can be a tool for organization, but it has to be a concrete goal in mind, otherwise you end up with an echo chamber more concerned with making ice burns than the struggle.

Those points have nothing to do with real life versus online life. It is just as easy to end up falling into an echo chamber of like-minded opinions in the real world as it is online. It is just as easy to wan to make change and fail due to a lack of a concrete plan if you meet in the world as it is if you meet with others online.

And more than that saying "the internet isn't the real world" seems to dismiss the real harm that it can do. Harassment over the internet is real harassment. Having a thousand people send you death threats over twitter is still traumatizing and painful. That in itself is proof that the internet is no different than phone-calls or newspapers.

If the internet isn't "real life", then what is?

 

[tonysidaway]

Is there a summary of the "why" behind the feminists being banned?

Was their behavior against the rules?

You can read the decision for yourself as it develops here. There is also a link there to the case page where, presently, the final version will be posted.

At the current make-up of the arbitration committee a proposal needs about 8 votes in favour to be sure of passing, and a proposal with 8 opposing votes cannot possibly pass. You'll see a lot of reformulation on the page in an attempt to find a proposal that will pass.

The decision is composed of four main sections: Principles, Findings (of Fact), Remedies and Enforcement. The important ones are Findings and Remedies, roughly equivalent to verdict and sentence in a criminal court.

If you look at the Findings you'll see the links to evidence of the conduct described in each finding. You'll see that some of the people being banned from the topic (by no means all feminists or anti-Gamergate) often have a history of poor conduct which has resulted in multiple sanctions. When I first started editing Wikipedia in late 2004, and Arbcom was just getting started, editors as unruly as these ones would have been site-banned for a year. Things are far more nuanced now, and a valuable editor who misbehaves on one or two topics is usually banned only from editing those topics.