User talk:2601:580:4200:5213:FD6A:10D6:B4F8:213F

A request for the removal of partisan bias: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy)

This article in no way demonstrates anything other than large scale bias against what is essentially a large, bi-partisan, extended debate.

Within this are extensive claims of harassment of highly politicized provocateurs, while explicitly ignoring their own actions. This article fails to express the political complexity, save for opting for partisan coverage. This is unacceptable in any informative media.

Thus forth, I will demonstrate, in hopes of some effect, and due to the politically biased representation of this Wikipedia article, the partisan bias infecting this article by extrapolating written evidence of bipartisan misconduct.

Firstly, however, it is important that on take a look at what this is about. Gamergate was a large scale online argument over three things. Disparaging media coverage, journalistic cronyism, and gender disparity.

This first previous editors metaphorically kill in the article happens to be journalistic cronyism.

"After Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, wrote a disparaging blog post about her, #gamergate hashtag users falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson." -Gamergate Controversy, paragraph 2

Part of the debate was exclusively the accusation of unethical cronyism by way of sexual misconduct made in the way of favors. Regardless of the authenticity of these claims, people must be informed about the unique situation in which this controversy takes place. Especially when this article considers this a flashpoint issue by stating:

"After Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, wrote a disparaging blog post about her"

Under no circumstances must information regarding a flashpoint issue be purposefully excluded from an article.

Furthermore,

Gender disparity happens to be the only thing actually touched upon with relative certainty in the article.

Active title: Coordination of harassment

"Ars Technica reported that a series of 4chan discussion logs suggests that Twitter sockpuppet accounts were used to popularize the Gamergate hashtag.[22] Heron, Belford, and Goker, analyzing the logs, said that early Gamergate IRC discussions focused on coordinating the harassment of Quinn by using astroturf campaigns to push attacks against her into mainstream view."

Not a single paragraph cares to mention harassment as a large scale issue, especially the harassment against Wolf Wozniak, who reported being assaulted by a provocateur, Zoe Quinn. This is absolutely unethical, and blatantly biased.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GGdiscussion/comments/50wddn/why_didnt_wolf_wozniaks_sexual_harassment/

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2014/09/wozniak3.png

The idea of media ethics is taken on with relative contempt:

"Many of Gamergate's claims have been rejected as ill-founded and unsupported. Ars Technica, Vox, and Wired, among others, stated that discussions of gender equality, sexism and other social issues in game reviews present no ethical issue.[70][108][109][74][110][22]" -Debate over journalism ethics allegations

"Many of Gamergate's claims have been rejected as ill-founded and unsupported. Ars Technica, Vox, and Wired, among others, stated that discussions of gender equality, sexism and other social issues in game reviews present no ethical issue.[70][108][109][74][110][22]" -Debate over journalism ethics allegations

This leads me to believe that the partisan bias extends from the externalized conflict of Gamergate. This is a huge no-no.

The unfortunate inclusion of biased news articles is also a big non-sequetor and should be a huge red flag.

Under no circumstances should a news article be taken word for word in an article which clearly describes a debate on the ethics of news providers.

I believe that I could post out-takes, media, videos and written confirmation of bias, but I truly believe that this article spurred me to action:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/35t4dc/discussion_the_gamergate_article_on_wikipedia_is/

Something must be done. I feel that it is unethical for the staff of wikipedia to stand idly by while this article provides such clear factual bias.

Vimitas (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Vimitas