Forums / Discussion / Meme Research

Can we keep this discussion polite and stay on the topic?

@superjumpman

Okay. I will bring this info to the mod team but my answer will be "no" for now. Addition doesn't seem that objective and related. Also article is too huge to handle more info tbh.
But on the other hand, it wouldn't be that much biased if you added brony charities on the Brony article. I'll consider. Just don't do stuffs on your own.

sorry about that,
it seems that no matter how hard i try, i just can't write neutral.
english also isn't my main language, so that makes things even worse
from now on, i just provide you people with sources
is that ok?

but i also have to say something:
i know that the entry can't handle more stuff, but that doesn't stop from things happening
if there can't be anything added to the entry anymore, then we should add a note saying that.
that way, the others will be informed.

or maybe it's better to make sub-pages for the wikipedia edit war and for the media coverage of gg,
that way there will be space for new stuff

• edit *
  now that i think of it, there was some dude wanting to have the entry more neutral
  he also linked to rationalwiki as a source

Alright, I've added the stuff earlier discussed in this thread on the page. I've tried to be objective, but feel free to edit if you think I used bias in there.

The problem here is that I can't figure out what you mean by "neutral" and "objective".

Does "neutrality" mean "report on the facts, and mark unverified claims as claims" or does it mean "treat all sides as if they are the same in behavior and evidence"?

Because it's impossible to be both neutral & objective if "neutral" means the second definition.

In that case, either you be "neutral" and ignore the best virtues of one side and the worst flaws of the other. Or, you be "objective" and support the better side by going with the evidence.

You're stated "It’s literally just a list of advertisers GG harassed into submission, and money GG raised to make itself look better" twisting the definition of "harassment" into knots (a boycott isn't harassment), and blatant bad faith (GG only gives money to charity to look better, ignore the fact Anti-GG doesn't give money at all).

And then claimed "it deliberately links to a sensationalistic anti-GG article to make anti-GGers look bad, and then actively misrepresents the article, which never claimed “gawker lost millions of dollars,” only that it theoretically could.", but Gawker did lose seven figures according to Capital New York, NY Magazine, Breitbart, Talking Points Memo, and many more.

Now that we have numerous sources for it, can we put the "seven figures" back in?

The Jimmy Wales "#PizzaGate" citation (in the article, not the list of sources) leads to an IGDA page. Thought you ought to know.

or maybe it’s better to make sub-pages for the wikipedia edit war and for the media coverage of gg,
that way there will be space for new stuff

No and no. Both headers you're pointing out don't have enough individual spread. If you want to, you can make a seperate entry for #NotYourShield, which is a big header so it can save you some space. That hashtag is notable enough for an entry by itself, which was already pointed out several times before.

But going back to your post on the previous page. I don't know what to do with the donations yet. It's a bit too small for a header so try to look into some sort of header merge. And yeah you also have the thing that was pointed out before that the entry isn't a GG circlejerk.

But I added Adobe and Gawker's reply to the header of Operation Disrespectful Nod as those two are related, after changing it a bit of course. The other two tweets aren't necessary. Check the Disrespectful Nod header for the additions.

What is this, GamerGate’s resume? It’s literally just a list of advertisers GG harassed into submission, and money GG raised to make itself look better. Plus, it’s got more of the usual strawmanning (it deliberately links to a sensationalistic anti-GG article to make anti-GGers look bad, and then actively misrepresents the article, which never claimed “gawker lost millions of dollars,” only that it theoretically could.)

Calm yo tits bro. Look, language ain't the best sure, but this is an official reply from Gawker regarding stuff that is already present in the article. Which you would've known if you actually read the thing, Mr. Gamergate article expert. It didn't require a seperate header and just took me a mere 10 minutes to rewrite into something decent. If Gawker fucks up its official reply then, that's not our problem because we're just sharing that they replied and the contents of that reply is their business.

Personally, I think the only way to write objectively about GG will be in hindsight. We just wait until it dies (yes, it’s dying and has been for a while now), nuke the whole article, and rewrite it from scratch.

Easy to say huh when you don't have to do it.

The Jimmy Wales “#PizzaGate” citation (in the article, not the list of sources) leads to an IGDA page. Thought you ought to know.

People didn't look correctly at the numbers, using the same number for multiple references (58 to 66 were in there twice). Should be fixed now.

I agree with RandomMan for a #NotYourShield entry. Given that there are enough things to note about #NotYourShield, I believe it can get its own entry. You guys can decide on it.

I have a suggestion. I think the Edit Wars section should include the Arbitration Committee case for the GamerGate page. It was settled on January 29th.

Yeah that's a bit too long to really get any good oversight in. If you can write down a bit what went down, I'll summarize it and add a paragraph.

Operation Disrespectful Nod entry

Should help a bit in making the main entry less of a clusterfuck.

Can you really claim objectivity when you're clearly touting one side as superior in every way to the other? If you were anti-GG, you'd probably say that the anti-GG side was superior in behavior and evidence. What's needed in the article is facts, not opinions.

Compare it to a real-life conflict, such as the Israel-Palestine war. It can be objectively said that Palestine has gained recognition by the UN as a "non-member observer State," and that both warring states have launched attacks on enemy civilians, since both these things are events that verifiably occurred. However, it could not be objectively said that one side is definitely going to win, or that one side is morally superior. These are opinions, which are debatable and nonobjective by definition.

The pulled advertisements definitely resulted from GG mass emails to the advertisers themselves. GGers on this site have said as much. GG has also raised money for their own causes, including $300 million from Intel towards industry diversity.

And that leads into my next point. Is the $300 million pledge even mentioned in the GG article? No. In fact, not only does the article ignore that, it excludes anti-GG victories entirely. The whole article fixates on pro-GG victories and anti-GG failures. There's no mention of anti-GG gaining support from major news outlets or supporting industry diversity. Someone reading the article would see pro-GGs as saints, and anti-GGs as do-nothing oppressors. Can you really call that objective?

As for the "seven figures" thing, I'm fine with it now that it has an actual source. The earlier source only discussed it in hypothetical terms, but these new sources show that it actually happened.

@Snickerway

Can you really claim objectivity when you’re clearly touting one side as superior in every way to the other?

Yes, for example the American Civil War.

The Union was heavily authoritarian (habeas corpus suspended), corrupt (war profiteering was a massive problem), and more then a bit elitist ($100 gets you out of the draft).

But it was in all ways superior to the Confederacy, which was a totalitarian (habeas corpus suspended, summary executions standard practice, internal passports), utterly corrupt (war profiteering wasn't a problem, it was an opportunity), aristocratic (having enough slaves got you out of the draft) hellhole, built upon a cornerstone of slavery (Alexander Stephens' cornerstone speech).

Anyone trying to pretend there's moral parity there is fooling themselves.

The pulled advertisements definitely resulted from GG mass emails to the advertisers themselves. GGers on this site have said as much.

But boycotts aren't harassment! This is the problem, you can't claim boycotts are harassment and expect not to be call-out on that. If you're to claim GG's boycott is different, then you have to explain why, rather then just claim "[GG] harassed [the advertisers] into submission" and expect everyone to go with it.

GG has also raised money for their own causes, including $300 million from Intel towards industry diversity.

Um, I think you mean "Anti-GG", so I'm going to argue against that, if I'm wrong please clarify.

The difference is, GG gave money to charity (92% of Afterlife Empires profit's go to charity, so don't start with "TFYC aren't a charity") out of our own pockets, Anti-GG got Intel to give money for them, and Patreons aren't a charity.

It's easy to be generous on other people's dime, if a person wants to to donate to charity, they're going to have to pay for it themselves, getting someone else to isn't the same.

And that's leaving aside the fact that a lot of these "charities" are as sketchy as the Vitruvian Man

Is the $300 million pledge even mentioned in the GG article? No. In fact, not only does the article ignore that, it excludes anti-GG victories entirely. The whole article fixates on pro-GG victories and anti-GG failures. There’s no mention of anti-GG gaining support from major news outlets or supporting industry diversity. Someone reading the article would see pro-GGs as saints, and anti-GGs as do-nothing oppressors.

Question, have you put up a proposed section about this? Because it's not on this thread as far as I can see.

Question 2, if you did, what was the response? And what was your response to their response?

Because it's really not fair to complain about it not being in the article if you haven't tried to put it in yet.

As for the “seven figures” thing, I’m fine with it now that it has an actual source. The earlier source only discussed it in hypothetical terms, but these new sources show that it actually happened.

I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

And that leads into my next point. Is the $300 million pledge even mentioned in the GG article? No. In fact, not only does the article ignore that, it excludes anti-GG victories entirely. The whole article fixates on pro-GG victories and anti-GG failures. There’s no mention of anti-GG gaining support from major news outlets or supporting industry diversity. Someone reading the article would see pro-GGs as saints, and anti-GGs as do-nothing oppressors. Can you really call that objective?

Good stuff yo, completely forgot about it. I'll add a header later today to the Operation Disrespectful Nod entry, as Intel's funding is an aftermath of that event. I removed the header from the GG entry after I made the seperate one, so it would be out of place there.

But we understand that the GG entry lacks a good Criticism header. It's also quite difficult at this point though, because there are a lot of articles speaking against Gamergate. That would need to be filtered, and the best way to do that is through events.

Do you perhaps know some more notable ones?

Edit: Added Intel's Pledge.

@Snickerway & Libertarian

If you're not gonna talk meme research though, take it elsewhere.

@Snickerway: "There’s no mention of anti-GG gaining support from major news outlets or supporting industry diversity. Someone reading the article would see pro-GGs as saints, and anti-GGs as do-nothing oppressors. Can you really call that objective?"

I remember I added the MSM coverage of wu and quinn together with the pakman interviews, it had lots of embed vids so I understand why it was removed and merged with wu's header. But don't forget to also put the interviews done to GG people by huffpost for example, jennie Barahj (I don't know if I wrote it right) also had a interview where she spoke about GG and her project.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/gamergate_n_5989616.html?1413386458
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/female-gamers-gamergate_n_5990310.html
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3937655058001

As for supporting industry diversity, I'm still yet to see any evidence of this. And no, intel supporting femfreq isn't anti-gg supporting diversity, Intel is a neutral company and they haven't go nor pro or anti-gg so please don't count them as such. if you have any verifiable sources of anti-gg supporting diversity, I encourage you to post them here.

@randomman for the wikipedia edit wars and arbcom, tbh that thing is quite extense, I would like to suggest a sub entry, not only for GG but also related to wikipedia's entry since it points to lots of problems in wikipedia's system that have been used not only against editors but against wikipedia itself.

This is what the entry could contain:

- Problems with Vandalism, sockpuppets and single purpose accounts
– vandalism
– ban of single purpose accounts and sockpuppets
- Wikipediocracy
– Doxing of editors.
- 5 horsemen
– OP 5horsemen
– OP's wikia page deletion and gg's migration from wikia to gamergate.me
- Jimmy Wales
– Tweets
– Wikipedia interventions
– Gamergate entry
– David Auerbach
– 8chan entry
- Arbcom
– Brief description of Arbcom
– Results
– Backlash towards wikipedia
– "Reliable sources"s reliability.
– Jimmy Wales AMA
– TBA.

As you can see, this is not something that could be resumed in a single paragraph without leaving out important events.

edit: I apologize for the lack of code on this post, it's been such a long time since I posted that I forgot how to do it ;-;

@Ratalada

Problem is that not all those points can really be documented properly.
- Vandalism
- Sockpuppets
- Single Purpose Accounts
- Doxing
- Interventions
- Backlash

What website doesn't have that? And how do you wish to properly document that stuff? It's Wikipedia, so saying it has those things is kinda a "No shit, Sherlock" due to the size of the website.

I don't exactly get why Twitter or Results are points of it.

@randomman

The claims of sockpuppetry and single purpose accounts were exploited left and right to ban people at the start the controversy and you can find that in the talk pages(and it's archives) where people like ryulong and others were abusing those accussations to block people instead of addressing their claims, until old editors raised those same issues to which they were forced to respond.

I guess I should have been more clear with the names, I was refering to wales's tweets, which are way more than the ones on the screenshot from the gamergate entry and point his criticism and posture related to the consumer revolt.

And then another section to the interventions/participations he wrote inside wikipedia that were GG related, like these 3 cases:

- the gg controversy where he pointed out rude behaviors of ryulong, tarc and markbernstein (all who were topic banned due to misbehaviours) and also recognized that GJP was legit and none of the involved sites has addressed the accussations at that time.

- David Auerbach, a tech writer that wrote about gamergate, who was misquoted on purpose by ryulong to push his agenda, the issue grew so much that ryulong falsely accused him of making threats, Jimmy wales had to intervene in defense of auerbach, which after seeing the favouritism mods had towards ryulong, decided to stop commenting on wikipedia.

-8chan entry: ryulong tried to turn the 8chan page into a extension of the narrative pushed in the gg entry, to which many editors opposed but ryulong persisted despite having a self-ban. Jimmy wales had to intervene to making back off.
____

- doxing:
there was the doxing of tutelary and titaniumdragon that was also documented on the gg entry until it was cleaned due to size problems, it was pretty ugly and was done by anti-gg editors in wikipediocracy.

-Results: I refer to the sanctions editors received product of the arbcom, I was thinking on using the table from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-01-28/In_focus since it reflects the results in a clean way. the link also addresses the backlash that I will explain below.

- Backlash: To this I refer to the backlash the wikipedia received because of the arbcom results, starting with the guardian article inaccurately saying feminist editors were being purged from wikipedia and claiming no pro-gg editors were banned (both false, nobody was banned yet since the arbcom didn't even finish, and many pro-gg editors were going to be topic-banned too). This spreaded to many sites like:
+The Guardian: https://archive.today/IYbBh
+The verge: https://archive.today/eT0cY
+Gawker: https://archive.today/cw8PL
+pandodaily: https://archive.today/xlCUc
+The Mary sue: https://archive.today/uOTWK
+Rawstory: https://archive.today/Z2yFs

and slate.com that reported the whole scandal created from innacurate reporting from the guardian:
https://archive.today/4pmIt

I should have been more detailed no only on the naming of the sections but also with the sources, I apologize for the lack of them on my previous post.

So there's the Law and Order episode that currently being both the Law and Order and Gamer equivalent of CSI's "Fur and Loathing"

I was wondering if it should be mentioned in the article or should we wait until there are more concrete evidence of mutaion

MorningSTAR – The Dawn said:

…until there are more concrete evidence of mutaion.

/v/'s already thinking it'll be their version of baneposting and given some of the dialogue ("They just leveled up." "Level complete." "Get out gamer girl!" "Does your son play video games/Where does he play?") I can't help but think it's going to be a meme. It definitely needs a few days to see if it "sticks," though.

@xTSGx I agree. Also, don't forget the masks.

thoughts?

I've noticed that the sections that end with the most criticism of the body of the section are ending with a rebuttal to statements against GamerGate. I've also noticed that any criticisms of GamerGate use words like "claimed/claiming," while any response to the criticisms use more certain phrases like "refute." An example is "after which Brennan refuted the mistakes of Brianna’s explanation."
That's not neutral. Even if all the facts were to be presented, and only the facts, that choice of wording would still create a bias.

Furthermore, if the Twitter block list is relevant, it should be in a section about block lists, and include a mention of the plugin to block websites that don't support GamerGate as-well. Else-wise, it should just be removed.

The example you cited is ok. What brianna did was make allegations and accusations against Brennan and his site while asking him to take responsability for her doxing, despite she never contacting Brennan via email and the speed her dox was deleted. Brennan corrected her on how the events transcurred and how the law protected him as an admin from cases like this. Brianna was indeed mistaken. Is the entry supposed to ignore Brennan's corrections because they made Brianna look bad? neutrality is about presenting facts, even if it reflects badly on "pros" or "antis".

Just because an accurate description of the facts is not to your liking it doesn't means the entry is biased. But if you have a better way of wording it that doesn't diminish the facts, please share it with us.

The twitter blocklist is relevant because it has blocked thousands of people, it's relevant because it was endorsed by the IGDA and even blocked the chairman of IGDA_PR and that whole scandal was the main reason IGDA_PR was closed, the blocklist has also been used as a blacklist by raspberry_pi and bots from gamedevs offering jobs. So no, that thing is relevant and shouldn't go.

A massive twitte blocklist it's on a completely different level and category from an app that blocks sites. But I guess it would be ok to add the app. I've rarely seen people using it tho, since most links to boycotted sites, be it in kia, 8chan, IRC or twitter, are archive.today links, making the app pretty much useless.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ggfirewall/?src=search (462 users) while kia alone has 27,000 users. I don't know if that's enough for it to be added to the entry.

Careful, less is more. If facts weren't to my liking, I would say so.
"Denied" or "gave a rebuttal to" work much better; It's much more formal, less likely to turn people away. It's more victimless. The current way it's worded is better left to smaller conversations, not articles.

I see some of the more subjective issues no longer have the word "refuted" used, so that's good. But, I have a question: Is KYM supposed to have NPOV? Because, if it is, as I'm trying to explain here, "refuted" is an "interest" word.

I think we should have a section in the GamerGate entry or a new entry on Tim Schafer's Sock Puppet Controversy.

I came here to say the same thing as Chowburgerz, although in a different manner. I advise to make a section about GDC2015 and mention the panels against racism/misogyny (like the ones from Rami Ismail and from Zoe Quinn) as well as Tim Schafer's action. (Perhaps mentioning that Anita and Zoe were in the VIP box?)

I am planning to create an entry for #notyourshield.
Maybe i can put a mention of Tim Schafer in there.

(i know that i am probably not the right person for creating that entry, but others can always edit it)

Tim Schafer may need a person entry for the following:

His cult status with Grim Fandango, Monkey Island, and Psychonauts.
Making history with Kickstarter as it relates to Broken Age.
The controversy surrounding the cancellation of Spacebase DF-9 and the delay of Broken Age Act 2.
The controversy surrounding the sock puppet speech at GDC.

Should we add something about the reddit modtalk leaks?

Since i made an entry for it, can the #NotYourShield part at GamerGate be removed?

Superjumpman: yeah, the same happened after OP Disrespectful Nod got his own entry. I've removed it from the page.

gr8 m8 no d-b8 i r8 it an 8 i h8 2 b in an ir8 st8 but its my f8
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 it an 8/8 plz don't h8
gr8 b8 m8 cant even h8 so I r8 8 outta 8
Gr8 b8 m8. I rel8, str8 appreci8, and congratul8. I r8 this b8 an 8/8. Plz no h8., I'm str8 ir8. Cre8 more, can't w8. We should convers8, I won't ber8.

Idea: update the block bot part of the entry with information regarding Chris Mancil.

I am sorry for bringing this up again but can we please FINALLY put a header for the charities?

Are these facts enough for a header?
> the 'weaponized charities' post
> the fact that there has been donated over $150.000 to charities + examples of fundraising campaigns
> mercedesxxx fundraising for ablegamers, and the latter rejecting the money because the lack of transparancy
> #GamerGateIsLove

the last one is an action in response to the creation of "gamergate is hate"-shirts

Maybe create an entry for the gamergateishate/love t-shirts, or is that too much?

Isn't it a bit too small for it's own entry?

Copied from the comments:

When is the “Exodus to 8chan” section of this article going to be updated? /gamergate/ is kill, and /gamergatehq/ and /gg/ has risen. I’m very sure this counts as a major development.

"It is later revealed that the user was shadowbanned months prior to making the comment for violating site-wide rules and that the mods mistook it as something was mistakenly marked as span and approved it"

This sentence in the article is not quite coherent.

2 requests

1. update the blockbot header with the lawsuit, wich caused the blockbot move it's domain name.

2. add opEarthQuake to the entry

details of the operation
related hashtag: #areyoublocked
and also this:

is the latest controversy with the calgary expo something that can be added?
(long story short, honey badgers brigade sold some gg artwork and asked feminist board some questions. They got kicked out. Twitter exploded)

Oh, and when can someone start editing the entry? Is it just waiting until the mods respond?

I understand a lot of shit has happened and will happen in the future and it would be difficult to add every major event to the article but we really need to update it. The latest update is PizzaGate, a joke hashtag from a few months ago. Why was that added?

Suggested update: The CalgaryExpo drama.

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/32y8vt/calgaryexpo_megathread/

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2015/04/18/go-home-gamer-girl-press-release-on-unjust-banishment-from-calgary-expo/

8chan thread: https://archive.today/L6C4H

Perhaps updating the OP Disrespectful Nod page with the Calgary actions will be needed as well.

hi guys, i know every GG thing can't be added to this already long ass article, but i would think that #GGinDC would be something worth mentioning.

Sorry about my tone here but…
Can someone PLEASE answer? You guys told me not to rush things. But can we please have our questions answered without waiting a WHOLE MONTH?
Or at least tell us if we do need to wait for the mods to answer to edit stuff. Or can we editors, discuss requests without the mods needing to answer.

(ps. mr. Pakman released a new series of interviews about #gamergate)

Still no answers, guess i have to do it THAT way then…

Ok mods, you had time enough to answer. I will wait until sunday, if you still don't answer by then i will update the entry myself and hope other editors will correct any eventual mistakes.
I will accept the ban if i go too far for you mods.

I am sorry that it has to go like this, but this is the only way to get either answers or get the article updated.

I've had enough patience, i hope you folks understand.

Superjumpman is about to tear shit up.

As an outstander, i honestly don't care of any event related to this. I got no idea why do we even need an update for already a good written entry. So how about this:

Just launch seperate entries if you think those events/hashtags exc are noticeable enough. It makes easier to understand if they worth for seperate entries. If not, they can be merged or deadpooled, depends on its relevancy with this site. No need to act hostile.

@TripleA9000

You are not helping a bit. Take your gags to the RR please.