User:Jgm74/sandbox

BLP Issues

There are WP:BLP, WP:OWN and bias problems that start in the GGC article and spill over into linked articles.

Sommers
 * The WP:BLP concern raised on the Sommers:Talk page [].


 * Ms Sommers is briefly included in the main article and her page is internally linked. She is a notable participant in the controversy; her notability is due to her academic prominence. Sommers identifies as an "equity feminist" and a Democrat (the US political party). Eg. this interview []. She has written several books that outline her philosophy and engaged in many interviews. Her article represents her as antifeminist, an opponent of feminism.


 * Ms Sommers writes, "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an "opponent" of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always.", published source here.


 * These edits justified by user:TheRedPenOfDoom, "If her work is viewed as antifeminist, then it is viewed as anti feminist and that is not a BLP issue. Wikipedia is not here to promote her personal perception, it is here to present the way it is viewed by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)".


 * And by user:ImprovingWiki, "Prove it. This is a BLP after all, so it's your responsibility to show that what you're saying is correct. Rather a lot has been published about Sommers, so I'm surprised that you would know exactly what proportion of sources discussing her call her a feminist and what proportion do not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)"


 * Ms Sommers raises the concerns that the article misrepresents her views; she is labelled an opponent of feminism rather than a critic[].


 * Further concern, "Wiki editor deleted that The War Against Boys" was a NY Times "Notable Book of the Year" & replaced with critical quote. Agenda?" [].


 * The problem is that some editors are using RS to justify WP:BLP violations.

David Auerbach
 * The WP:BLP issue and the resulting poor behaviour by many were explored on the AN/I noticeboard []. Whilst this specific issue is resolved, I allege that there is a general problem in the GGC articles and editors whereby WP:BLP issues are ignored and shouted down.

Zoe Quinn
 * However potential WP:BLP issues are defended with great exuberance when they involve the so-called "Anti-GG" side. Refer to this GGC:Talk page discussion [] and the comments by user:NorthBySouthBaranof. Here I would argue that WP:BLP is being used to suppress criticism of a prominent figure.

Anita Sarkessian
 * Considering this section of the Talk page [], where we have user:Xander756 disagreeing with user:NorthBySouthBaranof with respect to material to include in the Anita Sarkeesian article. It concerns me that NorthBySouthBaranof edits the entries of Xander756, redacting information that is in the public sphere. At some time following this interaction Xander756 is sanctioned with a GamerGate topic ban. I am concerned by the unequal application of WP:BLP; it is defended vehemently when articles discuss Ms Sarkeesian and Ms Quinn, so called "Anti-Gamergaters", but it appears that WP:BLP is applied much more haphazardly when it applies to Ms Sommers and Mr Auerbach. This gives the impression of Wiki bias. Furthermore the sanctions applied to Xander756 [], indefinite topic ban, gives the impression that sanctions are being applied unequally between those who are labelled "pro-GG" and those who are labelled "anti-GG". It appears that "pro-GG" suffer harsher sanctions and I refer you to [] where Ryulong suffers no sanction for what I believe is worse behaviour (an unfounded accusation of threatening behaviour).

WP:BLP is a major issue in this whole controversy and there is a common group of editors involved in several articles. I request that this policy is clarified and a clearer way to dispute with is outlined. Subjects do not know how to raise their concerns. Ms Sommers says recently that "Your critics can cite my Wikipedia profile as evidence. It was attacked by activists -and can't seem to get it corrected.". The article should not be written by the subject, but I argue that the subject must be allowed to dispute the article when they believe that they are misrepresented. Editors may then criticise the subject using RS material after the subject has been allowed to identify their philosophy.

Bias and ownership of the articles
 * Reviewing the contributions to the Gamergate Controversy article [] there are a small group of individuals who are actioning the majority of the edits, and reversing a large number of edits. They do, prima facie, appear to own the article. Is this a problem? Looking at the first sentence, "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture", this strikes me as a poor statement that contains intrinsic bias and, I would argue, is nonsensical. It does not describe the GG controversy, it is a judgement statement. This is the quality of text that this small group of contributors have produced. I believe that if you peruse the edit log you will note that any changes to this narrative are resisted strongly by the same small group of editors. These NPOV [] and WP:BLP [] issues have been discussed at length. I would argue that there has been no progress made in these discussions, there is a deadlock, and the atmosphere is hostile to the entry of new editors. It may be that this small group of high volume editors will have to stand aside to allow any progress to be made towards a neutrally voiced article. Unfortunately even people who have elected to stand aside from the topic, such as user user:ryulong are unable to stay away []. Editors need to step aside to allow new minds to look at this topic and the current group of editors will not do this voluntarily.