Draft talk:Impact of Gamergate

Sanctions enforcement
All articles related to the Gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This section was copied here from Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) by Mathglot (talk) on 22:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC).

Origin of Draft:Impact of Gamergate
Draft:Impact of Gamergate was created 19:32, 14 January 2024 as a result of this discussion at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) about possibly splitting off section from the main article. (Any discussion about whether to split should occur at the talk page of that article, not here.) As of rev. 1195681697‎ of 21:36, 14 January 2024, readable content of the draft is still a copy of the Legacy section of the article; the only changes are to pre-content matter, end matter, reference naming, and so on. Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead too long
The lead of this Draft (as of rev. 1195681697‎ of 21:36, 14 January 2024) is just the four paragraphs of content at the top of section before the first subsection heading. At 11kb, it represents one third of all the readable content of this draft—that's way too long. Also, there is plenty of material in it that is not a summary of the article and contains unique information not present in the body. One possibility, would be to simply stick a section heading above it, such as == Overview ==, which would solve both problems but leave the article with no lead. Still, that may be the best path forward, as a new lead could be written based on the entire content. Mathglot (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Resolved, with a section heading, and new lead based on a summary of the body. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Section heading naming and organization
The current naming and organization of the sections is chronological by years or range of years. This very likely stems from the organization of the main article, which grew organically over time, and updates were placed in new sections at the bottom, named after the year. However in this article, we now have enough perspective to look back and organize it differently, if we wish. As the impact has divided into several directions, I think it would now be best to organize it thematically rather than chronologically, but that would be a big change, and if attempted, should wait for resolution of the split proposal. Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Social, cultural, and political impact" section in the current main article in theory describes the impacts Gamergate has had on three separate fields. A format like that could work well. But this article is largely about the evolution of the alt-right, conspiracy theories, and online harassment campaigns from 2015 to present. There's a lot of retrospectives to draw from, but I find it hard to say what section headers would be optimal. QAnon, Men's Rights Movement, impact on the Republican Party, white nationalism, it all feels very closely tied together so I do find it hard to section apart... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What is clear, is that the current, chronological structure serves the article poorly, and isn't the best approach for the reader. Whatever restructuring we come up with now will no doubt grow and morph over time with the contributions of other editors and discovery of more good sourcing, but anything is better than what we have now. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)