Meme Encyclopedia
Images
Editorials
More
GotFunnyPictures is the property of Literally Media ©2024 Literally Media. All Rights Reserved.

GamerGate

866 Views • Created 9 years ago By Evilthing • Updated 6 years ago

Created By Evilthing • Updated 6 years ago

Patience finally snaps.

28 四Please explain how this edit s not grossy Insulting to the human beings that are proGG supporters but not part of the harassment and how this does not t unilateral push to fuly discredit the proGG side when this has not yet been done in RSes is completely against policy. -MASEM (t) 01:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC st the sourcing to make the antiGG side look like saints? This happened. Enough sugar coating aiready-Ryaióng Because this is what we have to deal with when the article wasn't even at the state it is right now Accounts that haven't been used in nearly a year going "look at this guy being mean because he won't into my own POV". Why I keep getting trapped in these stupid edit wars. I was wrong. The article should ked down again. And then we weed out the users who are not here to properly adhere to the rules and regulations No, they aren't doing that, they are editing to remove your biased PoV. You obviously have little care for who you insult on the proGG side, creating a bias that you shouldn't be editing this article with. What is changed not accurate to the sources the mainstream sources do not describe the event with that much bile or hatred. And sugar coat as to stay remain neutral and clinical. -MASEM (t)01:46, 2 One editor added a link to a blog calling itself the "Gamergate wki that had was full of the sex scandal narrative and then he began edit warring over the use of the citation of Kotaku's refutation. My actions in situations on this page are not due to a biased POV so don't you start accusing me either-Ryülóng the Removing the sPS-thats fine. Rewniting to accuss the entirity of the proGG for harassment and misogyny when we have sources that affirm it is likely only a subset is bogus. And yes, your actions clearly speak a bias that you refuse to even consider the possibility that anything said by proGGers could even be true. WP doesn't evaluate statements to detemine if they are true or not (that's OR), we summarize sources, and the best mainstream sources do not insult the proGG like you are doing, add in WP OWN behavior, as well as the extra-ordinary factor that your actions here are influencing people offsite to participate, and that's side you I didn't rewrite it. And there's been barely anything done by anyone with a pro-GG POV to constructively edit the article. it's been constant cries of bias and POV when everyone who has been active on Wikipedia and responding to your RFC have recognized that the article people thinks of me off-site is only my problem. If I can deal with im/ thinking I'm the scourge of all the s----- Kamen Rider Wikias and every anon who uses a translation featured on this website, I can deal with KotakulnAction and Jgg/ finding my old s----- geocities website, as has already happened it seems-Ryulóng it stands is either fine or it's giving too much credence to the pro-GG side when that is not covered in reliable sources. And what one group 0209 Your attitude here is creating a vicious circle that will only get worse if nothing changes in the approach this article takes and/or your approach. Your actions are driving ed tors to come here in eamest ways this. You report them as SPAS, and then keep editing this further away from those views, creating more interested persons in coming to fix this. That's an extra-ordinary case of disruption that you I'm pointing out that you have said yourself you're well aware that SPAs are coming here because of you, so you should be actingt 02:35. Ryulong, it is quite clear it is "you" who are not following Wikiepdia's rules concerning NPOV. Yes, the majority of the mainstream media have a negative opinion of Gamergate. That most certainly does not mean that it incumbent upon editors to therefore create an article with a negative tone about Gamergate. if anything. WP NPOV means we should be producing an article that is 'descriptive, not 'evaluative. Save the evaluation and look at this guy being mean because he won't let me skew the article into my own POV". Way to assume bad faith based evidence whatsoever. rd like to see an article that adheres to WP NPOV, not one that in any The rules are WP UNDUE and WP BALASPS. Because positive coverage of the supporters of the Gamergate movement does not really seem to exist in reliable sources, we cannot spend much time on the article 0205, 28 You miss the point. There's ample opportunity not to editorialize at all, yet you insist on giving the article a slant toward anti-Gamergate "opinion* just because that happens to be how much of the press is spinning it WP.NPOV means avoidance of injecting editorial opinion to the greatest degree possible. You have absolutely not adhered to this. lamcuriousblue (lalk) 0 This is how things are covered in reliable sources that aren't the dreaded Gawker or Polygon websites. The fact that it upsets people that their movement is seen this way does not mean that Wikipedia should be forced to sterilize coverage compared to every source it uses. The problem does not lie with Wikipedia or its users. It lies with the movement itself and how it presents itseif to the world, which is a haphazard and uncentralized way that makes it impossible for anyone to determine what they really want-Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Avoiding biased language and blatant editorializing is not "sterilizing" the article. BTW, I suggest you have a look at the articles on Tea Party movement, Occupy movement, and Creationism, all of which ane controversial movements, spoken of quite badly in some segments of the media, yet somehow Wikipedia manages to cover these without blatant bias and negative editorial zing. Why cant even our articies on people/groups clearly "hated" like ISIL, Ku Koux Klan, Chares Manson or Adolif Hiliter. Yes, o have to mention their misdeads and why society does not look favorable a them, but they are given the benefit of an encyclopedic treatment of their history and other events without a negative light. -MASEM Wikipedia needs to reflect the way this is reflected in the media Perhaps TaralnDC's edit wasn't the best, but that doesn't make any of the other edits that have taken place tonight by people arguably the other side any better. The constant removal of the Kotaku ref. The constant insistences that the descriptions of the reliable sources. Arguing over the word "discredited" when it is mostly used to refer to the original claims of corruption as nothing else has come about. I'm not going to be made a scapegoat because ľm the the Trust me, I'm not saying that the above edit is the only bad thing going on, but the amount of edits that continue to sneak in more and more "pro-antiGG" propaganda is outweighing the attempts remove valid sourcing and statements otherwise. Both types of edits are troublesome, but us experienced users should know a lot better not to make them.-MASEM() 02:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I know most of my edits that could feasibly be under this umbra of yours have been to the concerns raised by various uninvolved editors throughout the discussions here and on the various other forums of discussion on Wikipedia where people have said that even in this state the article gives too much credence to Gamergate's "it's about ethics" ine. And it's hard to keep dealing with the By that logic, the possibility that George Bush was responsible for 19 terrorists slamiming into 4 domestic targets should be in the lead of 9/11. Points of view are covered proportionately and fairly. That does not mean 2:06, pushed GG into an article like video game journalism. The better example is that we have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories which that might Bad are t) 0209, 28 Looks like a solid edit, conforms to WP RS and WP:WEIGHT, do you have a specific policy based problem with it? Artw (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC) WP NOTSOAPBOX -we cannot be a spokemouth for the antiGG and ignore the POV of the proGG that is documented. -MASEM (t) 02 05, 28 October 2014 (UTC The way the New York Times. CNN, and the BBC cover this is not using this a sa soapbox-Ryolóng (坑道) 02 10, 28 October 2014 (UTC We are not a newspaper. We are not here to sensationalize anything. It is very easy to drum up views when you report those that harassed women out of their homes in a very negative light, but we're not here for h means we cannot How do you suggest that we approach this issue when every one who has come ethics volations in video game journaism" version of the lede gives the pro-GG side undue weight? o the RFC feels that the 't's about issues of misogyny and sexism in the gaming community, and also concerns Ryūlóng (琉竜) 0216, 28 October 2014 (UTC) That's not what the RFC was about nor is there any type of unanimity that you think is there. -MASEM (t) 02 18, 28 October 2014 (UTC) That may not be what it was about but there are plenty of uninvolved editors appearing who raise the issue-Ryülóng Correction, issues are not just with the lede but with the apparent over-representation of the pro-GG side-Ryülóng( 02.39 028 October 201 Seriously? That edit was soapboxy? Not even close. While we're at it I don't think someone who has spent the last few days arguing that we abandon all policy and edit the article according to some scheme they ve or policy Artw (talk) 02 22, 28 October 2014 I've never said anything about abandoning any policy. Everything I've said falls with all core content policies including UNDUENEIGHT, which I have explained several times. -MASEM And if you cannot see how it is a soapbox for the antiGG side, put yourself in the shoes of a proGG person that did not participate in the harassment but wants to promote improved ethics in journalism, and tell me how that is Regarding the OP. The biggest favor Wikipedia could perform for the human beings that are proGG supporters but not part of the harassment" would be to bluntly describe the key facts, as was done in the diff provided in the OP. Fortunately, standard procedures coincide with that favor. Re NOTSOAPBOX: Apart from reliable sources, the obvious situation is that this article would not exist if it concerned opinions regarding joumalistic ethics. It is also obvious that people can make up reasons to justify gamergate, but it is not Wikipedia's role to promote those views. The language of independent secondary sources should Right now the article is WP SOAPBOX for anti-Gamergate, and justifying this by appealing to the overwhelmingly anti-Gamergate coverage in the mainstream media. I'm sorry, but just because a point ot view held by a large number of people, or a large number of respectable media sources does not mean we should be injecting editorializing into the article in favor of that point of view. WP NPOV (nor even WP FRINGE) does not imply majoritarian POV pushing is justified. And as rve stated repeatedly, there's ample opportunity to use unblased language here, which is pretty far from seeking out an artificia "middle". This is in fact how the majority of well-written Wikipedia article on controversial topics and movements are done. See the Tea Party movement article Agree completely with Masem and Blue's views. The intro paragraph has veered into further absurdity. ovetopaint (talk) I'm just trying different wordings hoping to find a way to present the ethics issue that follows the actual sources we have for the topic and that will be palatable enough to the anti-GG pov pushers that it's not instantly reverted The arguments have all been made on this talk page again and again and the pro-gamergate crowd are outright stonewalling any attempt at progress with claims of bias that have no basis in policy. The fact is that whether the worst harassers are a 'small subset' or not, the campaign is not concemed with any legitimate ethics problems. Gamergate spends a telling everyone who will listen that it's about ethics, and a little time making vague and unsubstantiated claims of ethical problems This is why we have no re able sources for any genuine work towards improving ethics in jounalism, and why our reliable sources either say only that the movement claims t claims in various ways. This has to change. Your preferred version does not meet policy If you don't like my changes to the lede, suggest a way to property portray the ethics angle as a claim, because that's time n who are not particul r. Would you prefer to remove the ethics claims from the lede altogether and address them in more detail later? - TaralnDC (talk) Going back to my earlier revert issues with Ryulong, I was actually quite happy with "claims of journalistic ethics concerns in the online gaming press". What I was not OK with was "widely discredited claims of journalisti I would also put the The movement's misogynistic harassment is extremely well cited, and is in fact the only reason this article passes the WP.GNG tacts. There's no obligation to treat both 'sides' the same: we have to present them both the way the sources do. Our sources for the ethics angle have always treated it So I keep repeating, and being ignored on, there's in fact no obligation to repeat majoritarian 'editorial* slant, and every reason to avoid it, per WP:NPOV. The latter guidelines on avoiding inflammatory language and all the rest still apply, even if the majority of sources you find have a negative spin on the issue. Once again, "describe the issue, don't 'editorialize a point of view. And I would say, a flat out statement o Gamergate is intrinsically misogynist" is exactly that. lamcuriousblue (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC unquestioned "factual source on the "misogyny" of gamer cuiture. Venture Beat (and why is this source more "reputable" than much of what's source material?) is welcome to that lamcuriousblue (talk) 03 53, 28 October 2014 (UTC) No. We say what the sourc lat statement that you cited does not in fact appear, from what I can tell contrast it with what the lede actually says: "resulting in increased attention to ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming Period. Policy does not allow us to ignore aspects of the sources we don't like, so you can't simply handwave away reliable news sour claiming theyre 'editorialized.' The r your complaint about the word 'ingrained, that is the result of a completely absurd previous battle over the lede. A large number of direct quotes in this article are the result of tendentious disputes over wording: lire that particular one resulted from someone taking issue with us paraphrasing the word 'long-noted' to 'long-standing.' This is the kind of thing that happens when a noisy horde of POV warriors are hold bac o means the only source for the movement's misogynistic harassment, though Doesn't Ryulong get tired of getting into a new shitstorm every single day? It even looks like he enjoys it. Take a 1 week break, see how things get better and evaluate your usefulness to the article Loganmac (talk)0 not believe that you only yesterday had the nerve to shoo off another editors comments about attempts to intimate them into silence with NOTFORUM when you're behaving like this. Go back to reddit if you don't want to do anything but talk s--- TaralnDC (talk) Piease tell me that a guy saying "1 got dooed by 8chan as in any way or form a reasonable concern on the topic of the article, because if that is so then you clearly don't know a lot about policies as you claim. The Devil Advocate closed the discussion like 10 seconds after I reverted him. Also, how do you know I'm from reddit, did you try look u And your statement saying I do "nothing but talk s---" is a little off don't you think, or have you ignored my actual suggestions? And yet again this is further getting a moot discussion that has nothing to do with the arti you sure that u Preventing extremely based editors rom removing valid sources or adding incredibly im alid sorces is useful is it not? Are my article contributions such as he WikiLeaks section or these vanous四additions problematic that it means I should be banned? Maybe my attempt to rewrite the lead yesterday (or two days ago, whenever it is from this posting) was a bit much, but all anyone sees or says they see are the number of edts I make and complain about that number rather than actual content I've contributed-Ryülóng ( 09 Does any anti-gg people actually read the rest of the NOPOV policy? Or just BALSPS? There is still WP.YESPOV which states Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity and then there is WP IMPARTIAL which states articles NOWHERE does WP BALASPS say that since most of the RS's present one opinion; wikipedia has to have that opinion too. Retartist (talk)
Origin Entry:

GamerGate

Notes

Imgur

Textile Embed 
!https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/855/532/d8e.png!

Related Photos ( 4 )

Comments ( 8 )

Sorry, but you must activate your account to post a comment.

    Latest Images