Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft

No, that is a self-evident attempt to en-run around a policy that was designed to prevent votestacking. This discussion should also be covered, because it is a part of exactly the same content dispute. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with JzG here. One may or may not like the rules, but any reasonable reading of the AE ruling would put this discussion under the 500/30 ambit. One could make an

WP:ARCA request to clarify this, of course. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

the 500/30 restriction is, at this time, applied only to the

Gamergate controversy article itself, its Talk page and its subpages. In case there's confusion as to what a "subpage" is, see Subpage, which has the definition I'm talking about. Linked or related pages aren't included in the 500/30 restriction, as of yet, so it is not applied here at this time. But, if convincing evidence can be brought that shows that a related page is having chronic problems from a series of low-experience accounts, it can be applied to those pages too. Zad68 14:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[2]

Rhoark (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this RfC would normally be on the talkpage, which is covered by the 500/30 restriction. The subject of the discussion is the main article, not a "related" page like the

WP:ARCA. One middle ground, if people agree, is to let all people comment, but count the !votes of only the extendedconfirmed accounts. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That is precisely what ought not to be done: disregarding voices in the absence of disruptive behavior. In an ideal world, a closer would review arguments only and disregard content-free or "per (name here)" votes. The anxiety about this is enough of a distraction that I'd endorse to

WP:SEMI advises not to do it preemptively. Rhoark (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a subpage. That is obvious. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is no secret that I detest the use of 500/30 protection in content discussions as a way to bar the opinions of our readers and new editors, the people that we are writing an encyclopedia for. In addition, 500/30 has never been authorized or used in the Wikipedia: namespace, according to the Protection logs. Holding an RFC as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for comment is a valid and traditional method for gaining a more broad community consensus, though it is unusual for an RFC held here to just cover one specific article. Usually RFCs held here are done so because they affect multiple pages and are thus not suitable for an individual talkpage.

I would also note that

WP:ECP

specifically states "In its use as an arbitration enforcement, extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption...Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred". I see some IPs and new editors participating here, but I don't know of any sockpuppets and so far everyone seems to be behaving themselves. I think we can reasonably trust whichever closing admin is brave enough to step up to examine the arguments made and weigh them accordingly, though when we call for a closer we should probably let them know that there is significant participation by new users.

So at this time, I decline to apply 500/30 on the grounds that disruption has not occurred. I intend to keep monitoring this page plus the usual offwiki places to keep an eye out for meaty sock campaigns, and if necessary will apply semiprotection. If that fails to stop disruptive editing, I would then consider extendedconfirmed as a last resort. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW per this conversation [3] I believe Wordsmith should be considered

WP:INVOLVED when it comes to this draft page. Artw (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That was fairly comprehensively rejected in this ANI discussion [4]. -

'c.s.n.s.' 14:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The draft page was not mentioned at all in the ANI, and since Wordsmith is directed to it by Masem after requesting edits to support I do not believe that it is appropriate for him to speak as an admin here or in maters related to it. Artw (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: since everyone is concerned about the 30/500 protection, I suggest we apply it to this page, withthe added restriction of only allowing edits from users who have NEVER edited the GG article or any of it's related pages in the past. Trolls and vandals are one thing, but the primary problem with the exsiting article is OWNership and POV-pushing from entrenched editors who refuse to allow any viewpoints that conflict with the narative they are trying (and failing) to build. So my suggestion is a clean slate - apply the 30/500 restriction to keep away the vandals, and limit edits to existing veteran editors who can bring a much needed new perspective to the whole article. 69.63.86.114 (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has no basis in any policy, I'm afraid, whatever one may think of your argument. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Gamergate controversy, is this draft an improvement relative to the existing article? Rhoark (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant prior discussions can be seen here:[5][6][7][8] Respondents are encouraged to make reference to applicable policies which could include but are not limited to

WP:BLP. Please focus on the articles and avoid soapboxing on the topic. Rhoark (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reject. The existing article rapidly explains to me, as one who has only limited exposure to this subject, what it's about and why it's a problem. The revised draft looks suspiciously as if it's all about ethics in videogame journalism. I like, on the whole, matter-of-fact articles on contentious issues, but this is way too far over that line. "People representing various points of view about Gamergate have faced harassment, doxxing, and threats of violence". Technically true, but the vast majority of them, and all the early ones, and all the ones that caused the shitstorm, were women or people who defended them. The draft puts GamerGaters and "SJWs" on an equal footing, as if social justice is a bad thing and misogynist privilege is just a point of view, not something demanding challenge. It started with the attacks on Quinn and Wu, that's how any article needs to start, but your draft minimises that and contextualises it as just one of a number of playful spats between equally matched opponents. I could go on, but basically this reads as if it were written by a Gamergate apologist. I do hope that is not what you intended, but sadly it is what you achieved. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being too factual is a curious indictment. I responded in more detail

WP:OUTRAGE. Rhoark (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: The limited arguments advanced for accepting the draft below seem to me to offer far better support for a careful copyediting of the existing article, through discussion and consensus on its talk page. The current article has undoubtedly suffered fomrt he back-and-forth of competing ideological edits, but the solution is not to replace it with a well-written whitewash, it is to review and sharpen the existing text. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as if it were written by a partisan on the GG side, albeit one who is at least prpeared to acknowledge that some independent sources (read: virtually all) put the blame squarely on the GG trolls. That is how it reads to me, and when I compare the two, I find that this one feels less neutral and more like an apologia. I know you think it's more neutral. I disagree. You asked for people's opinion and comment, that's what you got from me. Actually the current article is improved over the version current during arbitration, no doubt due tot he additional scrutiny it received, so I don't even see what problem we're supposed to be fixing at this remove, let alone with a weholesale rewrite that seems to me to offer a massive dose of false balance. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am slightly biased towards GG. It means that there is an inevitable amount of bias in what I'll say, and my position might not be exactly what it would be if the article was biased for "my side". That said, I don't have any personal or social stake in the debate, and I think my main motivation here is epistemology, for what it's worth. With that in mind, I think the current article is a lot more partisan on the anti-GG side than the draft is on the GG side. In fact, most status quo supporters I've read are both aware of the current article's anti-GG partisanship, and support it. The reasoning I've seen is that GG is a toxic movement at best and a hate group at worst, and that many reputable sources agree with that assessment; therefore, the fact that the current article sides heavily against GG is an accurate description of both reputable media and reality. I strongly disagree with this reasoning. While I've seen several posters note that reputable sources considered GG as a pure hate group, I've seen very little criticism of the specific sources that the Draft uses when it covers GG's alleged non-pure-hate-groupness; if there are trustworthy sources that say that GG is evil and crackpot sources that say GG is awesome or complex, then the crackpots should be ignored and the article should be about the harm that GG does; but if there are trustworthy sources that say that GG is evil and trustworthy sources that say it's complicated and there are problems on both sides and some people in GG are trying to do good (like a Washington Post article), then covering both sides becomes important for the sake of neutrality. Actually, I'd appreciate your opinion on this. What do you think of the sources in the draft that present the controversy as being more balanced than the current article presents? Olivier FAURE 2A01:CB00:B62:6500:CBB3:B79B:5476:D2A5 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. More whitewash/scrubbing/false equivalences. Rhoark knows this, too.--Jorm (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarification: Rhoark knows that it is a common position that his draft comes off as an attempt at whitewashing and false equivalences. He also knows that his draft will not be accepted by the majority of editors working in the Gamergate area. Why he wants to get a larger audience about this, I do not know. Just know that this is a well-worn path.--Jorm (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject - Primarily per Guy: this draft seems like a pretty blatant/obvious attempt to put 2 very different perspectives about Gamergate on an equal footing, when in reality the vast majority of RS (and the highest quality RS) make it very clear that our article should not do that.
  WP:WEIGHT requires that our article portray and discuss Gamergate primarily as the mainstream media have, and not cobble together a collection of lower-quality, outlying sources and pretend that they represent a perspective on Gamergate that has equal weight. An example that's really troubling to me: in the section titled "responsibility for harassment," we find the phrase In public discourse, Gamergate as a controversy or movement has mainly been associated with harassment of women, and this has severely damaged the movement's credibility. OK, well, if that's the case, then we should be portraying gamergate primarily as the harassment of women. I'm not seeing enough sources of high enough quality anywhere in the draft article to justify an article which notes the consensus of most RS about what Gamergate is/does/did, but then proceeds to pretend that that view is just one of two equally-weighted perspective. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Could you please identify specific uses of "lower-quality, outlying sources" or how the draft coverage differs from mainstream coverage? The reliable sources report that harassment is a minority of activity within Gamergate, but they focus on this minority, and media comments on itself about how it focuses on this minority. That is exactly the mainstream reliable sourcing that I have summarized. Most of the article weight is given to harassment, but weight is not a reason to contradict the reliably sourced fact that it's a minority. I'll note also that the mainspace article's first and boldest claim that Gamergate is mostly about harassing women is the attributed opinion of Stephen Colbert. Is that representative of due weight? Rhoark (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark, that reads as a bit disingenuous. Given your familiarity with the subject, you know that many of the 254 sources in main space echo Colbert's opinion. As a notable personality (especially with the generation primarily caught up in GG), his opinion was considered relevant, but he is not by any means the sole basis for due weight. 2600:1005:B169:195A:8D65:EFAC:3C3A:82F7 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert, acting in character, has probably agreed with mainstream political positions on a lot of questions, and half the time he was probably sincere. That doesn't make it due weight to use a satirical performance as a cornerstone for framing contentious topics on Wikipedia. If it is aligned with the other 253 sources, it should be possible to find an example that can be used to follow

WP:YESPOV. I'm not so sure that can be done, though. Colbert seems to be used here precisely because it allows the article to insinuate more than it could assert. Rhoark (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think your assessment of what RS say there is correct. See my comment (lower on this page) here. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject per Guy. 2600:1005:B169:195A:8D65:EFAC:3C3A:82F7 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The draft has better structure. I don't think this is a RfC that can be answered with a "yes" or "no" answer. Since the article and the draft are quite different, there will be aspects that are better in one over the other, and vice-versa. In the case of the draft, the titles of sections creates a much more distinct partition of the topic space, where the focus of each section is clearly indicated by the title, and each section covers a subtopic sufficiently different from the other sections; meanwhile, it's hard to say the same about the topics in the article, which include significant overlap.

As for matching the tone in the sources, I'd say the draft would greatly benefit from including quotations within the references themselves, referencing the particular paragraph or sentence in the article that best represents the part of the article it supports; this way, it would be crystal clear how well or badly does each part of the draft corresponds to a point made by one or several reliable sources. Diego (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent suggestion. Several people have gotten the impression that the draft is somehow trying to contest the reliable sources rather than reflect them. Quoting everything would be a massive undertaking, but in the live revision I've added quotes to the citations on the first two sentences of "Responsibility for harassment". These seem to particularly give pause to JzG and Fyddlestix. I suspect some changes are in order to the wording of that passage, but as a starting point we should all be able to agree that it is supported by very mainstream sources. Rhoark (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept: (I gave comments on the draft in an earlier version). The reasons are as follows:
  • Better written:
    • Overall readable prose size is 12% smaller. Current article: 57 kb. Draft: 50 kb.
    • Prose is better. This is subjectively clear when reading the article. Quantitative measures are available here. To pick one measure, the Flesch–Kincaid_readability_tests readability score (higher is easier) and grade level (lower is easier): Current article - Score: 38.5, Grade level: 13. Draft - Score:43.2, Grade level: 11.
    • Lead is much more concise and easier to understand for the uninitiated, while covering the major topics in the article. (my subjective view)
    • Topically and chronologically, draft is much better arranged. The current article jumps too much over the place chronologically for my taste. For instance, the "responses to harassment" section is much better written in the draft. The current article jumps all over the place on the issue. The law enforcement portion comes very early. Gaming industry response is separated from the earlier portion.
  • Sourcing:
    • There are roughly the same number of sources in both articles.
    • The references for both versions seem roughly of the same quality to me. High quality sources like the Washington Post are mixed with specialist sources (games press, for instance) or journalism sources like the Columbia Journalism Review, together with scholarly sources. Eyeballing the references: diversity of sources is slightly higher in the draft, but not much different.
  • POV issues.
    • As a crude test, I created word clouds for both the current article and the draft. I couldn't discern much difference. The major themes were the same. Among the biggest words in the cloud in both versions were: "Gamergate", "harassment", "supporters", "women", "threats", "controversy", "journalism/media", "game/gaming/video", "ethics", "online", "Quinn", "Sarkeesian", "Law" and "Twitter". There are some differences: for instance, the current has entries for "industry" and "sexism", while the latter has entries for "bullying", "movement", and "political". People can see both the word clouds here: current, draft.
    • As for subjective issues, I feel the focus in the draft, as in the current article, is on harassment (properly). There are three sections in the draft dealing with harassment (initial phase, continued harassment, law enforcement response) and another section (Events disrupted) is basically about harassment.
    • The draft has a much better section on the political and cultural influence. The current article does a much more muddled job of this. The topic should be discussed in a thorough way. (See recent speech by Clinton on the alt-right for one indication of importance).
    • The draft is a bit more nuanced on the different viewpoints expressed. This is partly through sourcing and partly through organization and emphasis. This is just my subjective opinion: people can differ on this, of course. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those are useful tools. I find it quite illustrative to compare the "Longest Sentences by Word Count" provided for both versions:

• "The Los Angeles Times, Wired, The Atlantic, and other reports described the campaign as a backlash against the increasing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in science fiction, while members of the bloc gave a variety of reasons for their actions, saying that they sought to counteract what they saw as a focus on giving awards based on the race, ethnicity, or gender of the author or characters rather than quality and bemoaning the increasing prominence of 'message' fiction with fewer traditional "zap gun" sci-fi trappings."

vs:

• "Gjoni's blog drew attention from people with a variety of pre-existing grievances about Quinn or the industry, including: what some considered undue media praise for Depression Quest, Quinn's prior conflicts with Wizardchan and The Fine Young Capitalists, and perceived bias in video game journalism."

As a sample of the differences in style, the former represent the product of a difficult time, where the process to write the article was akin to an attrition war, and where each stable sentence was the result of a back-and-forth between highly disputed positions. Diego (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingsindian, love how you bring data to the table. Those word clouds are great. "rape", "death", "abuse", "victim", and "home" (as in where threats were delivered to) appear in the cloud for the original but not for the draft; "harassment" and "women" are more prominent in the original, "threats" is about the same in each. "controversy", "political", "cultural" and "allegations" appear in the cloud for the draft and not for the original. I think this is why some people are reacting with a sense that the harshness of the attacks/threats against women that were made by Gamergaters have been downplayed in the draft. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Data is subject to varying interpretation; this is why I presented the clouds so that people can judge for themselves. As I said above, word clouds are crude tools.

In my opinion, only looking at the differences, as you do, is not the correct way to go - one should also look at the similarities. If one looks at the biggest words in both articles, i.e. those that cover the main themes, they're mostly the same, as I detailed above. As to the point about "harassment" and "women" being smaller in the draft, they're still among the biggest words, so I don't see it as a problem. One also has to take into account synonyms and subsets: for instance "threat" is one type of "abuse", the most serious kind; "Sarkeesian", "Quinn" and "Wu" are subsets of "women"; and so on. I am fine with the phrases "rape threats" and "death threats" being emphasized more in the draft. I don't think it will change the tone of the draft much, as I argued here.

I see the appearance of "cultural" and "political" in the word cloud of the draft as one of its strengths. Pretty much all sources, including those who treat Gamergate as simply a harassment campaign, emphasize the cultural and political aspects including feminism, video game culture. The current article is totally inadequate in this respect, as I mentioned above.

As for why some people think the harassment has been "downplayed", there are hidden assumptions in the framing: that the current article has the "right" emphasis. With such an assumption, any relative reduction is "downplaying" harassment. I don't think much of this argument: harassment is still, by far, the bulk of the draft. YMMV.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: It would be an interesting experiment and perhaps further data to consider to make up word clouds for the text of the sources in the various tiers that Rhoark listed out below (eg: a cloud for just the high tier sources, a cloud for the high and mid-tier sources, etc, adding a new tier each time). My impression is that one will see the shift in predominate words as more lower-tier sources are added, reflecting the hyperbole used by those sources in their reporting and stressing the need to look at the framing elements better rather than the reaction elements. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Indeed, I suggested this on the talkpage but never got around to it. I suggested the following method: take a fixed amount of text from a sample of sources and make a word cloud. (keeping in mind that the sources have differnt amount of text). One can pick the sample in several ways. One is the way you say, using higher-tier sources more. One can also look at sources based on date of publication, and their placement in the article text - since the beginning of the article is intrinsically more important than the end - most people only read the lead and perhaps the first couple of sections. Standard caveats apply to such an exercise: it is simply a crude indicator, so one should not oversell it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word clouds are an interesting way to look at tone, but I wonder if we might be falling too much in love with them. Two articles, one of which is filled with nothing but "Gamergate is political diarreha" and the other with "Gamergate is a political triumph" will both show a lot of focus on the "political" but that doesn't really capture the tone of either. Tone-matching is a job for a much more sensitive algorithm... perhaps we can employ the ones that run on our wetware in some asynchronous way? (Or pick up something from the field of sentiment analysis if you want to stay silicon) Heterodidact (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. The draft certainly has the advantage of greater readability, but I expect that's because it's the sole labour of a single hard-working editor. In regards to the content itself, I have some concerns - for example, in the "Responsibility for Harassment" Section, there is a claim that assigning responsibility for the harassment is "difficult", but the rest of the section clearly argues for the position that it's certainly due to the efforts of anonymous unaffiliated trolls - and then, bizarrely, spends a paragraph finding fault with the media's coverage of Gamergate. Are we to gather that the media should bear some responsibility for the harassment? There is another section regarding media coverage that simply quotes David Auerbach's opinion that the media has a vested interest in not covering Gamergate properly - I'm not certain that his opinion has weight as an authority in this regard. Now, to be clear, I can easily find similar faults in the existing article - I took a moment to click around the original in the same manner when I discovered this request for comment - so I cannot say that the original article is strictly better, but I'm fairly confident this draft is not superior. I would suggest that certain well-written passages be picked out and integrated with the original article, instead of a wholesale replacement. Since Rhoark has already done significant amounts of work here, perhaps other editors would be willing to take his draft and pull out the very best pieces and try them on for size in the original? Heterodidact (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Heterodidact: If, as some say, the draft's greatest strength is in high-level organization, it might do better to import text with a stronger consensus into that structure. I'm more confident the text can be incrementally improved than the structure can. The "Responsibility for Harassment" section is clearly a lightning rod that will require further iteration. Can you elaborate on the transition you find "bizarre"? I'm not sure I follow what the difficulty is. (Auerbach's quote has CJR's imprimatur, without which I certainly would not have included it.) Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: I would disagree that the organization is the draft's greatest strength; what I meant to indicate is that it has a far more coherent style and fewer awkward compromises-of-sentences. That is to say, I think certain strongly-written passages can replace their equivalent (if they have one) in the original article. In regards to the transition, I apologize if the word choice was harsh, but I don't see how his opinion should be used in that manner. He was quoted for his own opinion by David Uberti in a larger piece on "why" Mr. Auerbach (and others) are doing what he's doing, and that piece was published in CJR; that's not the same as CJR endorsing his opinion on the media's coverage; on my read of your paragraph, it was presented as a scholarly, authoritative last word on why the media is not conforming to its critic's expectations. Now, I appreciate that citing two specific examples is likely to invite a lot of litigating over those examples, and I'm willing to engage for as long as you wish, but I would like to be clear that my concerns are not limited to those two examples alone, and focusing on them is not likely to change my opinion of Reject for this specific draft. I reserve the right to change my opinion for later ones. Heterodidact (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no sense in belaboring points you don't consider crucial. If you can identify something that is more at the crux of the matter that would be helpful, but if you'd rather wait it out for a revision or two, nothing says you can't. Rhoark (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be pleased to keep an eye on your successive drafts; thank you for the invitation. However, keeping with the spirit of my original suggestion, I think I would prefer to keep an eye out for particularly good examples of prose and flag those for you (or others) to incorporate into the existing article. I trust you won't be too put out by that. Heterodidact (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject per Guy, though with thanks to Rhoark for the effort. Dumuzid (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Reject. The draft violates
  WP:BALASP. This structure does not and cannot do that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you take a look at the text of

WP:BALASP is probably what you had in mind. What I'm getting overall is that you would prefer a more chronological arrangement? Rhoark (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I feel really strange seeing

this ) - virtually nothing has improved since then. People are not amenable to changing the structure of the article. People don't want to change the section content. People were not amenable to making it chronological either. Perhaps people like to keep this mess set in concrete. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reject. The draft fails
  WP:NPOV as it gives too much credence to the side of the conflict which caused so much harm. Primarily in-universe sources support that view; the wider literature does not. We should respect the wider literature. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

By "the side of the conflict which caused so much harm", which side are you referring to? We have it on the authority of the BBC, Washington Post, Le Monde, and Mortensen2016 that this describes both sides. And which provision of NPOV is it that discusses harm? Rhoark (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not into pretense. The harassment campaign of Gamergate was catalyzed by Zoe Quinn's angry ex-boyfriend posting a hurtful essay about her. His supporters are given too much credence in your draft, which fails even to call it a harassment campaign. I can't imagine why you went to the trouble of placing this POV piece in front of community review. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: The specific phrase "harassment campaign" is important then? We're getting more specific; that's good. How would this edit[9] affect your overall impression? Are there particular aspects of the harassment that seem to have been neglected? Rhoark (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept: Finally it looks like we are making some progress here. The current article suffers greatly from ownership and POV-pushing, this draft attempts to fix some of those issues. A lot has happened since the Gamergate movement had its genesis. The article is in need of updating, and it needs to actually follow what the reliable sources say. This RFC is a step in the right direction. Too many people have made a good-faith attempt to edit the article and been chased off - by both "sides". There are a great many of us out there who are neither pro nor anti GG, but view the current article as an embarrassment, as it comes across as wildly disorganized while at the same time doing a poor job of defining what GG is and what the whole controversy is a about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.76.20 (talk • contribs)
• Comment: I have seen several people above (like
  WP:FORUMing and goes around in circles till everyone is exhausted. There are more than 50 talk page archives proving my point if anyone is interested. Here is a recent discussion, which can be indefinitely multiplied for anyone who cares to look. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I do understand your point, but there is only one way we will get a wholesale replacement of the article and that's if the new draft is written by someone who is not a partisan. At this point, only the partisans seem to care. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an alternative to that, which is that good-willed partisans from both sides start a new draft from scratch, using the best option found in either article whether in terms of structure, weight or phrasing. This is in the spirit of

WP:DR, similar to a WP:Mediation

process; and it would sidestep the current deadlock at the published article by replacing the "stay the same vs change a single sentence" with a "use the best content available in a way that all can accept", an option which didn't exist before. I believe the latter could achieve a much larger improvement.

And incidentally, that adversarial process is how NPOV articles on controversial issues are normally written - the Gamergate article was an exception in that it was impossible to maintain the scholarly discussion, due to the disruptive and ignited nature of the debate when it was written. Diego (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Diego (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: Would you like fries with that? No, seriously: there's another way - the way being followed. Someone can write a better article and put it for an RfC: and the "community" will decide. The point is that people do not want major changes (due to inertia, ownership, apathy, whatever). Here's the article roughly a year ago. See for yourself whether it has improved in prose, intelligibility or NPOV since then. If anything, it has gotten worse. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the "way being followed" has resulted in an obviously partisan draft that is almost certainly not going to get accepted. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous comment - there's no need to accept Rhoark's draft in full for it to be useful. The fact that it works as a

foil to the status of the article, which can be now discussed in relative "better/worse" terms of comparisons between concrete aspects of both alternatives, is an improvement over the "acceptable/unacceptable" dynamic over every proposed change; and a lot of that is going on in the "Reject" comments above. I'd say the existence of this RfC is showing that it is possible now to have the academic debate that was not possible when the first article was written. Diego (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Replace the article with the draft (the existence of votes such as "support" and "oppose" confuses me, so I want my vote to be unambiguous) — the article as of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=738771209 is not neutral, portraying the movement in a negative light, while the draft as of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=739148550 merely describes the situation without implying that either side is in the right. If you think that the article is more neutral, portraying all perspectives without taking sides, you need to stop participating in this encyclopedia project until you can write in a neutral point of view, because the article as if oldid=738771209 distinctly does not "attempt to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree", as was the statement of WP:NPOV even at the beginning of the project, and does not conform with the current NPOV intro of "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias". Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable independent sources also portray GamerGate in a negative light, so an article of ours that goes to such lengths to avoid this is a pretty clear indication of something seriously wrong. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept per KingsIndian and thank Rhoark for this effort. I think that the only way to move forward with this topic area is a BOLD action such as this draft. It's very clear from browsing the article talk page archives (50 pages!!) that the collaborative approach simply isn't working as intended for this topic area, and short of
  just deleting this article entirely, this is the best approach. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reject per JzG (Guy) and Jorm. BethNaught (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per KingsIndian. For some reason an argument about opposing this would be that the draft does not follow the sources. If I'm reading
  WP:NPOV correctly: "Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." So even if the sources we use are descibing Gamergate as a notorious internet terrorist, WP shouldn't adopt that same tone. Sethyre (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It appears you missed the word "proportionate". We summarize the reliable sources in proportion to the mass of their arguments. If 60% say one thing, and 40% say the opposite, then we emphasize the 60% position, but we also tell the reader about the 40% position. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that the current article uses Wikipedia's voice a lot. That's different than proportional use of sources. Hobit (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot express just how correct your assessment is! Wikipedia's voice is used to assert things as fact when the sources are opinions, something people have brought up numerous times before being shut down by the entrenched editors. Well, not all of the editors, just a couple who take issue with change. Sethyre (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject per NPOV (especially FALSEBALANCE, UNDUE, and YESPOV), V (NOTRELIABLE), BLP, and a CHERRYPICKING on top. Probably some other scary ALLCAPS as well, but not MOS:ALLCAPS. Woodroar (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please elaborate on how specific parts of the draft fail specific parts of the guidelines you've listed? Otherwise, your

  OMGWTFBBQ comment is of little usefulness to the conversation, since nothing can be done to the draft to fix those flaws. Diego (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I detailed some issues with the Draft at

Talk:Gamergate controversy. As far as I'm concerned, they all still apply. Woodroar (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest continuing this thread at

Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Request_for_comment_is_posted Rhoark (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reject Others have already listed the reasons why, but I'll just add that the reporting of threats and harassment is poor. Much of it is unverified. ゼーロ (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ゼーロ: Can you please clarify? Do you mean the sections about harassment need more citations to verify? Or that the sources report on events that are unverified? Or that the draft should describe them in more detail? Rhoark (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: There is a lot of text detailing harassment and bomb threats, but much of it is based on single sources or poor sources, and was never verified or resolved in the end. For example, when GamerGate supporters held events they always got bomb threats, and apparently got the police involved once, but it was never discovered who made the threats. We don't know if they were genuine attempts to disrupt the events, or if it was the organizers trying to paint themselves as victims of extreme... er... feminists I suppose. I cases where there has been follow up, on-going criminal investigations, reputable media coverage etc. it's reasonable to mention it, but I think that in trying to present a "balanced" view the proposed text has ended up repeating basically rumours and allegations. ゼーロ (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to include only things that had been "verified and resolved" we would be left with only Rankowski's threats against Wu. If in addition they have to be known to be genuine threats, then there would be nothing. Rumors and allegations are the story. Rhoark (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there is reliable media coverage of much of what happened. Sarkeesian being driven from her home was widely covered, for example. On the other hand, I do agree that much of the material would need to be removed as being basically impossible to verify. ゼーロ (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• With the comment that I know very little about the topic, I think the new draft is a bit more clear and readable. The lede of the current article is a mess and this is clear and short. Also seems to be more "just the facts" while the current article reads more like a one-sided screed. Sounds like the one-sided thing may be appropriate per sources, but the current article puts this in Wikipedia's voice more than I am comfortable with. Accept draft but with a full acknowledgement that I don't know much about the topic. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept draft. Kingsindian's arguments are convincing. This is far better than the current "article" that does not even attempt helping the reader understand a topic.
  flyer 03:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Accept Draft I'd forgotten how bad the current article was - right from the start it uses an astounding number of words to say almost nothing. The pattern of contrived language and disjointed structure continues throughout - long, rambling. This is much clearer and more straightforward. An editor above described it as a "just the facts" version and I find it more organized as well. That's no small task with a team of editors much less alone. Well done. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. The draft is more readable, and is a massively superior example of neutrality, free from any false balance. Bravo, sir/madam! 109.255.206.160 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject - the
  Gamergate controversy article as it stands gives a very detailed and explicit explanation on both what Gamergate is about and the chronology of events concerning it. The draft is a somewhat whitewashed version of the article. The draft sections off parts of the article that should be better described chronologically, and the draft goes to describe these events in a somewhat POV tone. If there are issues with the current version of the article, then that should be worked on by the efforts of multiple editors, rather than debating whether to implement a version of an article that was solely worked on by a single editor. I'm not against having discussions with the wider community on how to improve this article, but a re-purposing of this RFC may be in order, and then all members of the community could pitch in and discuss their own ideas on how the article could be improved. —Mythdon 22:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reject The current article is a bit of a mess, but this one
  tries too hard to give all points of view equla weight. There needs to be something in the middle. AIRcorn (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support with caveats On a re-read, many of the rejects !votes above do have a very valid point that some of the areas covered by this draft are false balance on specific aspects that could be considered "pro-GG supporting", that, in the long run, are minor issues compared to the larger one as a whole (TFYC stuff, for example). We should be trying to look at this from a farther-down-the-road view to avoid details that may have contributed but were minor and that were not readily focused on broadly. But that said, it is very easy to trim from this version to make it better. The key aspect of this one draft over the current mainspace article is that it adopts the correct impartial, neutral tone that one should expect to see a controversy documented in an encyclopedia, rather than the present mainspace version which is written to maintain the vitriolic and accusation tone that the press have adapted. When you take out the minor points above, the article still presents the right balance that there was a lot and a lot of negative opinion on the GG situation, but we should not be letting public opinion drive the tone of the article, and Rhoark's done a good starting point of distancing the encyclopedic coverage from that tone. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject Unusable sue to deliberate
  WP:WEIGHT issues and therefore unlikely to ever be made usable, as discussed in the previous RfC. Artw (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Came here via bot ping. By coincidence, I was just reading the article earlier today for an unrelated reason and the article struck me as having painfully obvious
  WP:NPOV issues. However, asking RfC respondents to comment on a wholesale rewriting of an article is really to ask too much of them. Chris Hallquist (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Actually, I stand corrected. The rewrite seems to mostly concern three sentences, yes? The wording of the RfC leaves me a little unsure. But assuming the issue is three sentences from different points in the article, this should be three separate RfCs. The first sentence of difference, "There is strong disagreement between participants in these debates as to what the controversy is fundamentally about" seems obviously true and clearly important enough that it needs to be clearly stated in the article. The other two edits concern unrelated issues that are mostly going to be a matter of what the cited sources actually say. I'd need to read both sets of sources, but given that the issues are largely unrelated I think they're two separate RfCs. Chris Hallquist (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Hallquist: The question asked in the RfC is about replacing the current article wholesale with the draft. The reason for doing it this way is explained here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:FORUM

less likely.

@Chris Hallquist: From the RfC header: we're comparing draft with article. The versions are at the point when the RfC was started, so that changes can be made to the live article, while the RfC is going on, without confusing people. Just indicate which one you prefer and why. Of course, this will involve reading through the draft as well as the article, carefully or not: there's no avoiding this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:FORUM less likely. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Chris Hallquist: A yes/no question usually limits meandering, in my experience with RfCs. Most of my own RfCs (this was not opened by me), are yes/no for this reason. Of course, people are free to weigh in on aspects of the matter they find interesting, in other sections on this page. In case this RfC is inconclusive, perhaps the other sections might still be fruitful in the future. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly accept —- Someone, who didn't participate at talk before, just reverted a broadly accepted and none-opposed BLP-violating-rumor-removal, the suggestion of which didn't originate from me: [10].

It was again removed by a third editor: [11];

returned by a fourth: [12];

removed by a fifth: [13];

returned by a sixth: [14]

and once again removed by me: [15].

The current article is an edit-warred, illegible, BLP-violating, travesty piece of s*** controlled by a group of editors who abuse their numbers in perfect,

WP:COI involved as well. Current article is a stain on Wikipedia and brings the credibility of the entire site down. Pardon my language but I've had enough of this s***. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment on the feedback process a week in. The request has so far been a resounding success, inasmuch as it has injected actionable feedback into what was a stalled talk page discussion. Some readers were apparently given an impression that the draft was attempting to undermine or contest the reliable sources on certain points, and an attempt has been made to address this.[16] Through adjustments to wording and through citation of exact source text it should be clear that the draft is reflecting rather than contesting the reliable sources. A quick review of these changes by Guy and Fyddlestix, to see whether their concerns have been assuaged, would be helpful.

Several editors have commented that the draft is more readable or approachable, which is good to hear. Others have wondered whether this readability could be brought to article space by merely copyediting rather than re-evaluation of the content. It is my firm belief that it cannot. The article's problems are not just some awkward turns of phrase. It fumbles in trying to use terms before introducing them. It repeats itself in trying to discuss a single idea in several different sections. It omits significant points of view, and demurs about answering basic Five W questions that the cited sources would enable it to answer. The readability the draft enjoys is the result of careful and comprehensible organization, not only phrasing.

The most troubling concern raised is the assertion that this organization of the draft is not neutral or reflective of the reliable sources. To a certain extent, this is an expression of shock that the reliable sources differ so starkly from editors' preconceptions about the topic. Some even feel that the topic is so nefarious that NPOV should not be followed. That view should obviously not be accommodated. Others think the draft devotes too much attention to certain claims for

WP:BALASPS, and that view can at least be engaged. I've started a parallel discussion in another section of this page to evaluate the overall landscape of sources and see what kind of emphasis is most consistent with the reliable sources. I hope for as many people as possible to participate in that process. Rhoark (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reject draft as garbage I was canvassed to come here and vote support offwiki. I have rejected the advice of my canvasser. Having reviewed the draft, I find it to be highly biased. Even starting, it states, in Wikipedia's voice, that "The Gamergate controversy is a collection of cultural debates." This is not a statement that should be made in Wikipedia's voice. Specifically, a number of sources have stated that Gamergate is a harassment campaign, not a collection of debates. I further note dramatic errors of fact in the lede. Specifically, "a panel discussion hosted by the Society of Professional Journalists," was not, in fact, hosted by the society, but rather by the Florida chapter of said society. I could continue, I choose not to. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would "pro-Gamergaters" canvass you to vote "support" when you're very publicly anti-Gamergate...? Can you link the canvassing so we can monitor it, or email the link to an administrator if linking would violate policy? I notice your last edit (in June) was communication with an editor who was indefinitely banned for off-site harassment. It would be especially troubling if the canvassing occurred in a forum where harassment also occurs. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The forum in question is one that I monitor and was specifically created to harass people. Tarc is probably unaware of the existence of the forum in question. As to your insinuation that I harass people? I do not. Hipocrite (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike some other wikis, Wikipedia values reliable sources over editors' personal opinions.

"At its most basic level, it's a heated debate over journalistic integrity, the definition of video games and the identity of those who play them."[17]

"GamerGate has become a feud between two sets of video game fans."[18]

"On one level, #Gamergate is an internal squabble between ideologically opposed factions within the gaming world."[19]

"GamerGate is the name of a campaign whose supporters allege that close ties between some video games journalists and those working in the gaming industry itself have given rise to conflicts of interest. The movement became embroiled with a wider debate over claims of sexism in gaming, and gave rise to violent threats being posted online."[20]

"Gamergate, a movement at the center of debates about misogyny in gaming and ethics in video game journalism"[21]

There are, of course, dissenting views, but that's why we have the NPOV policy. Rhoark (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you mention the NPOV I find it ironic (NOT IRONIC) that you mention "dissenting views," which you failed to include in your hot-garbage POV-push lede. Why are those dissenting views not included, exactly? Are you arguing that only a tiny-minority of the sources believe GamerGate is a Harassment Campaign, and not a whatever the fuck you think it is? Hipocrite (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment is given more attention in the lede than any other aspect, and more space in the body than all other factors combined. By dissenting views I mean those like Alex Hern or Amanda Marcotte who criticize the media for covering any aspect but harassment. That's a minority view, explicitly setting itself against mainstream coverage, yet many editors would like it to dominate the article. Rhoark (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you were aware that a substantial percentage of the sources do not believe the Gamergate Controversy is "a collection of cultural debates," but rather "a harassment campaign," then when you wrote, in Wikipedia's voice, that "The Gamergate controversy is a collection of cultural debates," you were intentionally violating NPOV. You should be banned from this topic post-haste. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think I need to explain

WP:FALSEBALANCE to you. Rhoark (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Um, did you really just

WP:CHERRYPICK your own cherrypicking? [22] Wow. 2600:100F:B014:3B0E:3103:F8DA:1F5B:984 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support as per Kingsindian's assessment. Irrespective of acceptance I respect the effort put in. LCrowter (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. While I appreciate that the current version of the article may not tell both sides to the Gamergate story, and that perhaps those Gamergaters not engaged in harassment have a legitimate complaint, sources of the highest quality mostly equate Gamergate with a campaign of harassment ([www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Tech-Culture/2014/1125/Gamergate-and-the-new-horde-of-digital-saboteurs], [23], [24], [25], [26]), rather than a more benign manifestation of the "culture wars". I feel that the current version more accurately represents the
  WP:NPOV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Mendacity on top of calumny. Gjoni's blog is used in a refnote about Boston Magazine indicating that he disputes the accuracy of his own interview. It's in dangerous territory with respect to

Talk:Gamergate controversy discussion, the article and draft would be better off without Boston Magazine. Rhoark (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Look, the purpose of a request for comment is to solicit comments from editors who are not involved in local discussions; it is not to litigate every small issue in the proposed draft. You wanted an outside view. Also, I'd remind you to

WP:WEIGHT, then that's a big problem, regardless of ongoing local discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sławomir Biały: The point being made is that if one deletes the refnote, it will change exactly nothing in the article text. Indeed, if one deletes the Boston Mag reference altogether, nothing will change in the article text. About your larger point, I don't get why you feel harassment is downplayed or that Gamergate is portrayed as "benign". The second sentence of the lead talks about harassment. The first section in the body is almost entirely devoted to describing harassment. The majority of the article is indeed devoted to describing harassment. Almost all sources, even those that describe Gamergate exclusively as a harassment campaign, discuss the cultural aspects. The section devoted to the cultural aspects tries to explain all viewpoints, without glossing over the harassment aspect or hostility. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Points do tend to be missed when you start off by calling someone responding to an RFC a liar and defamer. Dumuzid (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you are defending the second paragraph as a discussion of the harassment threats. To me, that paragraph is written in a

maintaining a neutral point of view. In any event, the second paragraph is barely coherent, and I'm willing to agree that this is just a side effect of poor writing, but whatever the reason, the proposed revision is manifestly worse. I'm eagerly looking forward to other uninvolved editors, as opposed to being heckled by the regulars for daring to have an opinion. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sławomir Biały: Sorry to ping you again, but are you sure you are looking at the right version? This is the right version, which is at the top of the RfC. The Twitter hashtag is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead. There is nothing about "comments" in the lead, or indeed elsewhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not discuss the hashtag until the third paragraph, and does not mention Twitter until later. As I said, the proposed revision makes it very hard to tease out who the players in the controversy are. We have unattributed accusations made against a game developer. Are the accusations part of Gamergate? Is Quinn part of Gamergate? We can infer that these women were harassed. Was their harassment part of #Gamergate? Is it something else? If so, how is it relevant to the subject of the article? We can also infer that their speeches were disrupted by threats of violence. How were those threats connected with the subject of the article? How were they delivered? Were they somehow connected with the hashtag (which as yet has not even been introduced)? Can we infer from the lead that the online movement organized under the #Gamergate hashtag is organized by Quinn and Sarkeesian, whom the second paragraph discusses? Or is it something else? The current revision of the article makes it pretty clear what #Gamergate is, and that it is opposed to the actions of Quinn et al. But the proposal seems to leave things deliberately vague. If this is for the purpose of subverting a neutral point of view, or just terrible writing, does not really matter. The answer to the RfC is: the proposed revision is awful. There's no way this should get consensus.

The draft lead does not contain any specifics about the most serious aspects of the harassment campaign, notably death threats, rape threats, and doxing. The text of the article only has a quotation by Quinn, but not

WP:WEIGHT

.

Finally, regarding "comments", I should have said "accusations". But unattributed "accusations" do not a controversy make. Who are the players? What is the controversy? It is not explained at all in the lead paragraph, and not really clarified by the article itself, which rapidly goes into the weeds, and the reader is left wondering what the hell the specific controversy is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The calumny is on the part of a source; the mendacity by a variety of others. Writing a neutral article is called POV-pushing. Declining to make a moral condemnation is called Righting Great Wrongs. Using the well-accepted canon of top journalism is called cherrypicking. Preferring the best scholarship is called false balance. I recognize this is a process meant to gather outside input, but that input will only be useful if its based in the draft as it is, the article as it is, sourcing as it is, and policy as it is. If feedback is based on flights of fancy, I have to challenge that to elicit something useful. In this case, it has elicited some specific concerns about the lede. It is deliberately short and deliberately vague - not to subvert NPOV but to make compliance possible. So much about the topic is speculative and contested that almost any claim will drag with it a bundle of caveats. The options are to say as little as possible and defer to the article body, or to recapitulate those arguments badly and without the benefit of nearby citations. You'd like more specifics, and its certainly possible to iterate on that. If its moral clarity and assignment of blame you're after, that cannot be given, and the existing article errs in trying. Rhoark (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark (talk · contribs), I think it's a BLP issue to throw around accusations of calumny; it can certainly be understood to mean one has committed a tort if not a crime. I'd respectfully ask you to think about rephrasing. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid: rephrased, though I think it perfectly reasonable to say so about a source being considered a BLP violation. Rhoark (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough grandstanding. The proposed version fails to discuss adequately the death and rape threats that were associated with the movement, and documented in many reliable sources. This is not just the lead, but a systemic problem with the article that trivializes the actual harassment that was the source of much of the news coverage. And the controversy is just noise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word harassment shows up in the current article 127 times and in the draft 107 times. At a quick look, both have the word distributed in a fairly uniform way. And the draft is overall shorter by enough, that the ratio is nearly the same. Yes, that's only a rough measure, but I do have a hard time seeing how using the word 107 times can be seen as downplaying it. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of death/rape threats do not appear in the lead of the draft, nor is it said anywhere in the article that there were these threats. We have reliable sources of the highest quality that make this assessment, so outright omission is clearly a grave violation of

WP:NPOV. Death and rape threats are discussed in all of the reliable sources of the highest quality: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The fourth sentence of the lead talks about violent threats disrupting events by Sarkeesian, among other incidents. The first section of the article talks about doxxing of Quinn, threats against Quinn and her father. The reason why "the players" aren't mentioned explicitly is because nobody knows who sent the threats and law enforcement does not publicly reveal such things. Your comments indicate that the draft, for whatever reason, was deeply confusing or otherwise unclear to you. I have not seen anyone else come away with the impression after reading the lead that it was possible that Sarkeesian and Quinn started Gamergate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the sources I cited above. These discuss death threats and rape threats as a significant aspect of the Gamergate controversy, yet these threats are barely mentioned in the article, and not discussed at all in the lead. The only instances of the word "rape" in the article are to do with "journalism ethics" and threats against John Bain (which are very weakly sourced). Likewise, the death threats against Wu are mentioned only in passing. The death threats against Quinn and Sarkeesian are not discussed at all! In fact, the word "death" appears more often in the titles of the sources used in the article than in the article itself. This tells you all you should need to know about the gross inattention to

Biały 17:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, that's a lot clearer and I think you raise solid points. I still like the draft better, but that certainly seems like an area it needs significant improvement. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: I'll be happy to improve it if I can understand what on Earth the problem is. Many of the claims above are demonstrably false, very minor or incomprehensible. It was alleged that the lead portrayed Gamergate as "benign", which is incomprehensible. There was a mention of the Boston Mag interview: I pointed out that the reference could simply be deleted without changing anything at all. It was alleged that the Twitter hashtag isn't mentioned, but it's right there in the third paragraph of the lead. It was alleged that the lead doesn't make clear who the "players" were: I then pointed out that the people making the threats are unknown, so it's impossible to meet the demand. Then, there is the claim that "death threats and rape threats" against Quinn and Sarkeesian aren't discussed: the draft talks about "threats of violence" in the lead. The section on Quinn describes several threats including threats to stuff dead animals in the mailbox which forced Quinn to leave her home, threats against Quinn and her father, threats to harm Quinn at conferences and so on. The section on Sarkeesian contains the following: Sarkeesian recieved hostile reactions online, including threats, slurs, doxxing, denial-of-service attacks, and pornographic images photoshopped in her likeness. These attacks renewed and included a specific threat of murder after a Tropes vs. Women episode was released in August 2014. Many criticisms of Sarkeesian are reactionary, ad hominem, or incorporate unfounded conspiracy theories. If the phrase "death threats" is important, one can add it easily without changing much at all.

Finally, the comment that the lead gives the impression that Sarkeesian and Quinn could be part of Gamergate: it is simply weird. I ask you, since you say that you had little prior knowledge of the topic: did you have any trouble figuring out from the lead that Gamergate was directed against Quinn and Sarkeesian, and not by them? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed lead is incomprehensible. It is never made clear that Gamergate is a collection of trolls that attacked journalists and video game developers, including Wu, Quinn, and Sarkeesian. Instead, it merely refers to a controversy arising from (unattributed) "accusations". Their connection to the movement is not specified. One cannot read the lead, and get the impression that a number of people, primarily women, were threatened with death/rape/doxing/etc, largely under the hashtag #Gamergate. That is essential information that needs to be conveyed in the lead.
• The proposed article is a gross violation of
  policy
  .