User talk:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate controversy/Archive 1

Discussion
I think this draft is a very good attempt. It needs a lot of work still, in my opinion. Here are a few comments.

First, a general comment: What exactly is the draft aiming at? Is it looking at the stuff chronologically, or topically, or what? At the moment it is not clear what structure it is following. Perhaps a bullet list of the overall structure would be useful.


 * I think the question of Gjoni's intent and the restraining order is rather off-topic. It simply does not matter what Gjoni's intent was: the vast majority of the sources do not even mention it. The fact that the shit hit the fan was important, not people's intentions. Volokh's opinion about the constitutionality of the restraining order is even more off-topic - correct though it may be. I would drop the text starting from "Individuals close to Gjoni..." to the end of the paragraph altogether.
 * The next paragraph discusses Gamergate's motivations. I think it is a rather good attempt. You are absolutely correct that the "movement" had its roots in earlier activity. However, I think some of the emphasis is misplaced.
 * I sampled the full IRC chat log dump. It is clear that Quinn's encounter with Wizardchan was a factor in the early activity. See the comments right at the start of the chat logs. The role of early Youtube accounts, what this medium piece calls "anti-feminist Youtube" (YMMV), including Mundane Matt and InternetAristocrat was also important.
 * A major theme I found in the IRC chat logs was the cry of "censorship", since even 4chan was deleting posts because already the harassment had started. Then the DMCA takedown of Mundane Matt's video etc. was also mentioned. This is also mentioned in the medium piece, which is fairly good on the facts (the ones it chooses to mention anyway).
 * The paragraph could do with changes of emphasis. Firstly, the motives of the people involved were rather varied. Definitely, the parts you mention are important, but other things were as well. I am not sure if one needs to go into the motives right here. One could have a separate section about the motives.
 * For the next paragraph, the fact that Quinn was leaving for France is similarly off-topic. Just drop it. The doxxing is important. Most of the rest of the paragraph is ok to me.
 * The next paragraph (discussing the atmosphere in 4chan) is similarly important, but it is not good here. This should be a separate section.

I will give more comments as I get the time. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A small comment: one can simply drop the Herod et. al. source. As I mentioned on the GG talk page, it is not peer-reviewed. Is there something specific in the source which is not mentioned elsewhere? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. As I described at the GG talk page, my mode of organization was to begin chronologically and pick an event. Then, highlight what the most reliable sources relate about that event. Next, include the less prominent but reliable sources in conversation with the first tier of claims. That last step especially can step out of chronology. It's a tree-like structure, where only the roots are chronological. The next events coming up would be the creation of the hash tag, then the "Gamers are Over" article. Satisfying NPOV about "Gamers are Over" will also necessarily pull in much of the material about Sarkeesian at that point, though chronologically that extends several years before Gamergate. I've written some of this, but not polished it enough to share yet.
 * I did not write anything yet I would characterize as describing Gamergate's motivations, only the reasons apart from Gjoni's post for animus towards Quinn, where such existed. All well sourced.
 * I plan to discuss censorship, along with GameJournoPros, some claims from CJR, as well as the contrary view that giving GG airtime is false balance in a much later section on meta-converage of GG's media coverage.
 * The 4chan culture section is where it is because of its close connection with Quinn. The 4chan group focused on her, and she's been outspoken about it in return. I think I need to drop the unwieldy sentence about what the culture is like. (The link to Sandberg is there if people want to know.) and add a quote from Quinn. Rhoark (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Heron, Belford, and Goker it is correct it is not peer reviewed, and they disclose a bias against GG because of the despicable threats. This distinguishes them not at all from other top sources on the topic. There are multiple claims both regarding Quinn and for the upcoming section on Sarkeesian, where they are either the only ones to say it, or say it best. Rhoark (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get the general idea of the organization of the article. I think you should make it as explicit as possible, because the devil is in the details.
 * I read the first sentence of the third paragraph ("Gjoni's post drew...") as dealing with Gamergate's motivations. I think the motivations were much too varied to be summarized in a single sentence like this. Also, there is a lot of diversity of opinion about even a single motivation. For instance, some people sympathetic to Gamergate would say that they were against "pseudo-feminists" or "Tumblr feminists" or "SJW", while anti-GG people would say they were against social justice and feminism itself. Gjoni, for instance, said somewhere that he is pro-SJ. Also, many of the people not directly interested in games, but political ideology (like Milo Y, and Sommers) came later. I think the motivation should be discussed later, separately. One should just describe the actions first.
 * I can only repeat that the "culture of 4chan" section seems misplaced to me. Chronologically it makes little sense to put it there. One is not quoting from 4chan or IRC chat logs, so it is strange to write that people do not often mean what they say.
 * (by the way) The "4chan culture" section perhaps relies too much on the Sandberg source. I think the article I mentioned on the GG talk page about ephemerality and anonymity on 4chan would also perhaps be useful here as a source. If I get the time, I will try to write up something.
 * I have not read the Heron et. al. article, if you have a copy, could you email it to me?
 * The section "Relationship disclosure" seems rather different to me. There is a rather abrupt switch from chronological to thematic. I understand that this draft is still a work in progress, so this will change in the future.


 * More comments as I get the time. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 22:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The first section emphatically does not describe the motivations of Gamergate. It describes various reasons people had a beef with Quinn before this started, and that is how the cited sources frame these things. I've made various edits in response to other matters you've raised. Rhoark (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits allowed?
You might want to clarify as to who is allowed to edit this article, and to what extent, since this is in your own userspace. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 23:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor edits, such as fixing grammar or citation templates, would not be unwelcome. For anything larger, I suggest forking out in one's own space, mainly because this is still unstable. I plan to make edits responding to various comments (including yours) all in a batch tomorrow. I'll then be pulling in sections on the hashtag, Sarkeesian, and "Gamers are Over" after Christmas. Once that's done, I think it will be meaty enough to make it a mainspace draft that people can collaborate on in parallel. Rhoark (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced that BLP policy necessitates or supports removing that content, but I'll let those changes stand as an olive branch. Rhoark (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Problems
You alluded to some problems in the draft, but not generally in enough detail to pinpoint them. It's not only for your benefit that I want to solve these issues. As described, they would be serious errors. Rhoark (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Structure
Is this draft intended to be a complete replacement of the currently existing article? If so, you're going to need a lede. If not- I'm not sure what the point of a section called 'Zoe Quinn' is. Would you be adding this to the current article, in which case a lot of the included material would be redundant, or would you be replacing another section with it? Where would you be placing 'Relationship disclosure'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. This is at present an incomplete beginning of a draft that will eventually encompass the whole article. It would be the first two sections following the lede. As I mentioned above, these will be followed by the beginning of the hashtag, Sarkeesian, and then "Gamers are Over". I don't want to necessarily replace everything, but will subject everything to scrutiny. The lede will be addressed last, as it should reflect the body. Rhoark (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but given that this is your draft, and you already know what you intend to include in the body, creating the lede can be done at pretty much any time. If you want people to give more helpful criticism of what you intend to be the whole article, creating the lede earlier would help. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a general outline, but as they say, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Rhoark (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Repinging - the earlier ping wouldn't have worked - it requires a new signature. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Initial issues that catch my eye

 * "Indie game developer Zoe Quinn often faces hostile reactions to her games": What game other than DQ?
 * "In Boston Magazine Zachary Jason says the post was constructed to deliberately incite others to harass Quinn" :Fairly certain he never explicitly states this.
 * "Contrary to rumors that Grayson had written a review of Depression Quest, he had merely mentioned its existence." :BEFORE the relationship, this needs to be mentioned.
 * The Heron Belfor Goker piece details the actual ways in which the IRC was used to coordinate various things and strategies, and it seems an oversimplification to just call it "vulgar and hostile discussion." Do you have access to the HBG article? If not I'm willing to mail you a PDF
 * " There has been long-standing suspicion in the game audience that the press functions as a public-relations mouthpiece for commercial publishers, and that journalists' objectivity is often compromised.[27] These issues had previously come to a head in the Gerstmanngate and Doritogate controversies." : WP:SYNTH
 * " According to Tadgh Kelley, the patronage model, like crowdfunding, disrupts prior expectations of the relationship between game creators and their audience.[31] He goes on to say that ethical pitfalls can, but do not necessarily, occur in this relationship.[31]" WP:SYNTH
 * The DARPA DiGRA conspiracy, while hilarious, received minimal coverage and the source used to include it in the article doesn't qualify as an independent reliable source (key word here is "independent")
 * Nothing about GJP in your section on ethics?

On a less critical note, thanks for finding the Arstechnica piece about Chanology, dehumanisation and "speaking internet." Also thanks for finding another source on the whole patreon thing. Brustopher (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * She's done a lot of little games. I don't know much about them. NPR is good for the claim that others besides DQ got hostile reactions. I know I've seen it elsewhere too, possibly WashPo.
 * From Boston Magazine,
 * "Gjoni, a software engineer, had set out to construct a machine to destroy his ex."
 * "he described to me how he painstakingly crafted “The Zoe Post,” a post that detonated with ruthless force and efficiency, for maximum pain and harm."
 * "From the start, it seems, Gjoni wanted to make certain that his blog about Quinn would connect with a large base of people in the gaming community, some of whom he already knew were passionately predisposed to attacking women in the industry.
 * I clarified the timeline on Grayson and added more about 4chan coordination.
 * I don't see any SYNTH where you point to, but I simplified those sentences.
 * Several sources talk about there being unreasonable conspiracy theories, and the best place for that in the article seemed to be about people looking at these relationships. DiGRA is the only RS'd concrete example I could find to back that up. I think that's better than the general statement that conspiracies exist, but it's dispensable.
 * I intend to talk about GJP in a section on meta-controversy over media coverage of GG
 * Rhoark (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. There's too many damn sources out there. I keep on forgetting stuff.
 * The stuff you quoted can be interpreted as implying Gjoni's aim was to destroy Quinn's professional reputation and that he was merely aware that harassment would occur even if it wasn't what he wanted to achieve.
 * Thx m8
 * It's SYNTH because the passages quoted are from articles that don't mention gamergate and were written before gamergate occured.
 * What about the conspiracy theory claiming people GG dislikes faked all the harassment against themselves, or that one about the game revivew that didn't exist?
 * kl
 * Brustopher (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Quinn section
Some more comments on the recent changes. I note that you tried to make the second paragraph of the Quinn section a bit more favourable to the "other side", so to speak. That is all to the good. But keep in mind that if you spend too much text explicating the positions of all sides, it risks putting too much emphasis on peripheral matter. In my opinion, the second and third paragraphs already place too much emphasis on Quinn's personal life which I see as rather inappropriate and distracting. Or at least the placement up front makes little sense to me. I have already given my opinion about the whole discussion about intent and restraining order etc. and won't repeat it again.

More comments as I get the time. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One of my goals was to wrap up everything to do with her near the top of the article (excepting Crash Override Network and the movie deal). That mostly consists of the Grayson matter, which is regrettably indispensable to the topic as described in RS's, and various aspects of her harassment, which has a strong consensus for prominent placement in the article. Rhoark (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Word clouds
I made simple word clouds of the original article and the current draft (note that the latter is very incomplete). Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a word cloud of 10 randomly chosen sources from the GG article. (multiplicities not considered). The sources are:


 * 114 - Auerbach: Gaming Journalism is Over
 * 123 - Valenti, Jessica (August 29, 2015). "Anita Sarkeesian interview: 'The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse'". The Guardian
 * 165 - Gera, Emily (April 28, 2015). "Tim Schafer on his Broken Age Kickstarter adventure: 'I'd do it again'". The Guardian.
 * 126 - Frye, Patrick (October 19, 2014). "Gamergate Movement Claims Their Female, LGBT, And Non-White Supporters Are Under Attack". Inquisitr.
 * 60 - Robertson, Adi (February 24, 2015). "A violent, delusional Gamergate psychopath is actually a comedian's terrible hoax". The Verge
 * 163 - Tito, Greg (September 7, 2014). "Exclusive: 4Chan and Quinn Respond to Gamergate Chat Logs". The Escapist
 * 91 - VanDerWerff, Todd (October 23, 2014). "#Gamergate has won a few battles. It will lose the war.—Vox". Vox
 * 169 - Brightman, James (October 3, 2014). "Game devs urge you to write Intel in response to #Gamergate". GamesIndustry.biz
 * 87 - Hale, Jennifer (September 10, 2014). Questions raised over bullying in the gaming community. Marketplace. Interview with Noel King (American Public Media).
 * 142 - "H.R.2602 -- Prioritizing Online Threat Enforcement Act of 2015". Library of Congress.

Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Another word cloud of 20 sources. 10 above and 10 more randomly chosen.


 * 9 - Stuart, Bob (October 24, 2014). "#Gamergate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry — Telegraph". The Daily Telegraph.
 * 109 - Crecente, Brian (September 4, 2014). "FBI working with game developer association to combat online harassment". Polygon
 * 70 - McDonald, Soraya Nadia (October 30, 2014). "How media critic Anita Sarkeesian turned Stephen Colbert into a feminist". The Washington Post.
 * 244 - Locker, Melissa (June 22, 2015). "Watch John Oliver Take on Internet Trolls on Last Week Tonight". Time.
 * 189 - Cho, Arthur (December 23, 2014). ""It's more common to see a blue hedgehog than a person of color as a protagonist": Inside the whitewashed world of video games". Salon.
 * 187 - Frank, Jenn (September 1, 2014). "How to attack a woman who works in video gaming". The Guardian.
 * 203 - Sottek, T.C. (January 17, 2015). "Crash Override wants to help survivors of Gamergate and other online abuse". The Verge.
 * 17 - Massing, Michael (June 2015). "Digital Journalism: The Next Generation". The New York Review of Books (Rea S. Hederman) (June 25, 2015). ISSN 0028-7504
 * 134 - Wu, Brianna (May 20, 2015). "Gamergate Death Threat Is a Slam Dunk for Prosecutors. Will They Act?". The Mary Sue.
 * 210 - McWhertor, Michael (January 6, 2015). "Intel pledges $300M investment to bolster women, minority workforce in wake of Gamergate". Polygon.

Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 22:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamer culture etc.
This is just a general comment. But I was reading the Chess/Shaw source and they mentioned the proportion of women playing games as half of the total population. I recall one of the gripes of GGers that this doesn't distinguish "casual gamers" from "hardcore gamers" (I believe Sommers mentioned something about this as well). This CNN source also "explains Gamergate" in terms of "mostly male" "hardcore gamers" vs new entrants etc. Perhaps this could be elaborated upon. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)