Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft

Page rationale

Talk:Gamergate controversy is subject to WP:30/500 restrictions as a page-level (not topic-level) sanction. This page is being used to host a Request for Comment with full community participation. Page protection sanctions are intended to prevent disruption, not to privilege the contributions of autoconfirmed over unregistered users. The Gamergate controversy talk page was sanctioned to prevent two types of disruption[1]: 1) New accounts re-raising old issues, and 2) Incivility by a particular user. Neither is applicable to this page, as it is 1) Being used by an extended-autoconfirmed user to raise a single issue, and 2) the incivil editor is topic banned. Any page protection should be used only when proven necessary. Rhoark (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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:[2][3][4][5] Respondents are encouraged to make reference to applicable policies which could include but are not limited to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:WWIN, and 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 on Jimbo's talk page about whether its "all about ethics", with the answer being plainly, "no." The draft does in fact begin with the harassment of Quinn, as you desire. Harassment is the largest focus in both versions, the difference being that the draft also follows WP:NPOV's instructions to report fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We should not, as the existing article does, highlight the WP:OUTRAGE. Rhoark (talk) 12:40, 12 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]

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]

Reject per Guy. 2600:1005:B169:195A:8D65:EFAC:3C3A:82F7 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]