User talk:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate controversy/Archive 2

Rationale
Why this draft exists: Rhoark (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The main space article is rambling and uninformative. The top-level sections do not break the topic down in a logical fashion, and as the article has grown by accretion many claims don't relate to the heading they're under anyway.
 * Claims are heavily cherrypicked, thoroughly mining claims that support one point of view while ignoring statements from the same sources reflecting more diverse opinions.
 * I found that in discussions about hypothetical changes, people often made uncharitable straw-man interpretations of what the end result of those changes would look like. It seemed impossible to advance the conversation without demonstrating exact text.
 * The only way to exhibit exact text of a complete top-level restructuring was to write a new article.

Status and permissions
The draft has evolved substantially since first presented in December, included revised and new sections. It is obviously still not complete.

I want this to exactly represent what I would consider the ideal article on the topic - what it could look like as a Good Article. As such I will exercise my rights over my user space. I'm not infallible, and feedback has pointed out some things that I agree fell below the article's maximal potential and revised on that. I hope to continue to receive that kind of feedback, but the position of arguing for content that I ultimately have final say over is an uncomfortable one I don't care to prolong. Once all sections have serviceable content, so that it is clearly and unambiguously communicating what I think the article should look like, we can start a truly open process on how my ideal differs from consensus.

In the meantime others may contribute to this draft. I have tagged sections for expansion that I will either get to last, or that I expect any reasonable person would not write very differently than I would. Those would be ideal places to contribute, but additions to any unwritten section will be evaluated on their merits. Gnome-type fixes to exiting sections are naturally fine as well. Relevant pictures could be found and uploaded in advance of their sections being written. I ask that the lede be left for last so it can be written as a true reflection of the body, as is best practice. Finally, if you'd rather make sweeping changes yourself rather than argue your case to me, you are within your rights to make a copy in your own user space. Rhoark (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
There is no discussion allowed on the main GamerGate page. Are you going to say something about the status of Sarkeesian's Kickstarter? She raised over $150,000 on a Kickstarter, produced 6 short videos, and now has announced that she is discontinuing the videos. What is happening to the rest of the money? Even if she is doing some other project to further attention to "inequities" in gaming or whatever she claims, it is at best a bait-and-switch since people paid to fund videos. Someone should allude to the status of that. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the "Cultural conflict" section, Many criticisms of Sarkeesian are reactionary, ad hominem, or incorporate unfounded conspiracy theories The source addresses the points you've raised in more detail. It would be undue to belabor it in this article, but you could suggest it be given more attention at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. Rhoark (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft Feedback
Below are issues I have with details of the draft, haven't really thought about the merits of the structure yet:

Zoe Quinn Controveries

 * Boston Magazine's Zachary Jason says the post was constructed to deliberately incite others to harass Quinn. Fairly certain this is never explicitly stated in the article.
 * Quinn dropped her legal complaint, not wanting to facilitate creation of a legal precedent as in R v Elliott. This was but one of many reasons she gave, and not one the secondary sources focused on.
 * and critics less interested in the games themselves than in political ideology very vague, people who don't know about GG wouldn't understand what this means.
 * Also disagree with the way the whole Grayson thing is phrased. The phrasing avoids presenting the 'rumours' as the false accusations that they were. False claims of sex for reviews were a big early trigger for Gamergate which seems heavily downplayed in this draft.
 * According to Kotaku leadership, they were not involved at the time the article was written. Worth noting perhaps that Gjoni stated later that he'd made a typo and agrees with Gjoni on this issue?
 * Participants in these chats were very concerned about outsiders posting false flag messages to discredit them, and Quinn took advantage of this to create uncertainty about their intentions. Cherry picking and weirdly phrased.
 * We're a section in and the word Gamergate has not been mentioned once. Is this a feature or a flaw?

Relationship Disclosure

 * Exactly the same feedback as last time, feel the section is too puffed up with sources predating or not mentioning Gamergate, and sources which aren't independent from their subject matter like the Digra thing.

Gamergate as a movement

 * The implication in the subheading is that the previous sections were discussing Gamergate, but in neither of them have you mentioned gamergate.
 * Mention that Baldwin has links to the industy through VA work. if you're going to mention the not an avid gamer stuff? Most sources that mention one metnion the other I believe.
 * Paragraph starting A sample of Gamergate tweets... contains a lot of good information absent from the main article which really ought to be added into it. Pls do so, if you can find a good place to put it.
 * Lizzy Finnegan Firstly you're citing this to Kotaku which isn't an independent source for GG. Secondly the source says "who was once a prominent GamerGate supporter but says she is now no longer involved," so it's factually inaccurate.
 * Gamergate is described in The New York Times as "those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. This is a bit of a quote mine.
 * The "ethics as a front" angle seems understated in this section, and not explicitly explored.
 * Supporters attracted to the hashtag were often unaware of the prior harassment or considered their involvement unrelated to harassment Not sure there's anything in your sources that justifies the use of the word "often" here.

Individual Harassment

 * Sarkeesian includes statements like "you're a liar," among the types of harassment women receive Cherry picking.
 * Much of the harassment that has occurred was been directed towards Gamergate supporters, including its female supporters. No source for "much of"

Cultural Conflict

 * Bayonetta 2 Polygon conflict is entirely source to Polygon and it's sister publication Vox. You've also emphasized the things the sources say that is positive about gamergate (the metacritic stuff), but not the stuff about how dodgy it is to ask a company to drop a reviewer as an advertiser because they didn't review your game positively enough.
 * Your sources for hte objectivity seciton are mostly unrelated to GG. It's unfortunate how little this issue has been touched on in the reliable sources. Here's a source i found on the topic a while back if you want more.
 * but Alyssa Rosenberg considers it "more revealing" to examine the core complaints about these games and a lot of other people have considered an undue focus on female creators to be the more revealing factor. Why pick Rosenberg over other commentators here? Also she doesn't necessarily consider it more revealing, but instead merely wonders if that could be the case.
 * Milo Yiannopoulos What does this scrub know about video games?
 * Also what does any of the Gone Home stuff you mentioned at the end have to do with anything?
 * and argued that gaming culture as a whole bore responsibility for harassment did she tho?
 * with some considering the article to have been racist. fairly certain this was an error from CNN, who mistook GG complaints about something else being racist for complaints about the article.
 * This Gamers are dead thing reminds me that you've not mentioned the wider email campaigns against other press outlets.

Overall I would rate this draft 'Not That Great' but nonetheless useful as a way to float ideas. Brustopher (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll dig into this in detail later, but I'll address two points on high-level organization. First, its definitely an intentional feature to not call anything "gamergate" that happened before Adam Baldwin tweeted "gamergate". Secondly, Sam Biddle, the letter-writing campaign, and Adobe pullout will be in the section on responses to media coverage of Gamergate. Rhoark (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Many (but not all) of these concerns have been addressed. Some I just haven't gotten to yet ("Individual Harassment" needs deep work all around). A few things I disagree on a need for changing.
 * If sources connect topic A to topic B, its valid to use a source that discusses only topic B in the Wikipedia article of A - so long as the claims elucidate something about topic A as determined by editorial judgement. The subject of a Wikipedia article is a topic rather than a word. This is for example why I stand by using a source about the ethics of Patreon donations to game creators. This is obviously related to Gamergate, even if it doesn't mention (and predates) the term. This is the same principle at play in the use of Obama's comments in the main article, which I recall you opposed on similar grounds, but policy and consensus points to these sorts of sources with higher-order connections to the topic being admissible.
 * Milo Yiannopoulos is in there because he's the only one I could find reporting on gamers' actual POV. It's not good practice to describe a POV only from the perspective of its opponents, which is what's going on with all the sources saying Gamergate doesn't want games to be art. What is actually said in the wild is that the noveau indie games the media loves are not as innovative or artistic as they are billed to be. It is a duty to describe this POV so long as any sufficiently reliable source can be found to do so. That unfortunately is Milo. Consensus has found Breitbart reliable enough for its own opinion on cultural criticism. Rhoark (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

4chan culture
Perhaps 4chan culture could be expanded a bit. I found this source, called "T--- or GTFO: The logics of misogyny on 4chan's Random /b/", about how 4chan has its own rules on many things, because of anonymity and ephemerality. There was also another paper, which I can't find right now, but I mentioned it earlier I think. I am not sure how much time I'll have, but I'll try to distill this and the other paper, or someone else can do it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on draft
I found a link to this draft while reading through the main page's recent talk archives; I wanted to understand why the article was so off-base but quickly discovered the whole mess is enormous. Kudos to you for taking the time to re-write it. Your draft looks to me a substantial improvement so far and very promising. Here's my two cents on what you've done so far and what could make it the ideal article on the topic:

1. The top-level structure you have chosen is far more logical than the current article and would give readers a better sense of what the controversy is about and how it came to be. However, as I read though, a slightly modified order came to mind:


 * "Cultural conflict" -> this section gives excellent background context for circumstances pre-dating the Gamergate controversy, so it would be ideal to get this upfront (possibly renamed "Cultural conflict prior to Gamergate" or something like that). If you move the paragraph beginning "Gamergate supporters perceive the gaming press as closing ranks against their audience..." further down into the sub-section on "Gamers are over" and put all of that into or just before the "Criticism of coverage" section, then I think this would be a great opening.  Then the final paragraph will segue nicely into discussing the hostile reactions Quinn received for Depression Quest.
 * "Zoe Quinn controversies" -> I've suggested minor edits below.
 * "Relationship disclosure" -> this section is fantastic and I really hope it makes it into the main article. It's so much more readable and to-the-point when you break down the topic this way instead of the nebulous "Debate over ethics allegations".
 * "Gamergate as a movement" -> this flows on really well from the previous two sections, it's only "Cultural conflict" that falls out of place which is why I suggest moving it. I've also suggested minor edits below.
 * "Individual harassment" -> could perhaps be renamed "Harassment attributed to Gamergate". In effect, this is a section covering activities that Gamergate supporters deny the movement is responsible for, so it flows on well from the last paragraph of the "Gamergate as a movement" section.
 * "Responses to harassment" -> I look forward to seeing what you propose for this, but I believe there are so few notable actions or actionable proposals that this should be a sub-heading under the previous section.
 * "Criticism of coverage" -> flows on naturally from the end of the "Harassment" section if you begin with the 'falsely attributed threats'. The "Gamers are over" articles should be covered with the GameJournoPros stuff at this point (put the "Gamergate supporters perceive the gaming press as closing ranks against their audience..." paragraph in here too).
 * "Gamergate activities" -> I think this flows on perfectly if 'Gamers are over' articles are covered in the previous section and this starts with the 'Intel advertising' part, because (I believe) the letter-writing campaigns to advertisers are a core part of what Gamergate (as a movement) would claim responsibility for. In effect, the flow would be from "Gamergate as a movement" to 'allegations that Gamergate is responsible for harassment' to 'criticisms alleging that press coverage mischaracterised gamers / Gamergate supporters as misogynistic harassers' to 'response from Gamergate supporters with their letter-writing campaigns'.  This makes it easy for readers to follow the natural sequence of initiation events.
 * "Events disrupted" -> both chronologically and in terms of notability, it seems to me this should come somewhere nearer the end, well after the harassment sections.  It should go before "Dramatisations", don't know if better before or after "Other commentary" though.  Alternatively, I think all of these events could be described as either harassment (e.g. Utah State) or "Gamergate activities" (e.g. AirPlay, GGinDC), so perhaps it's more readable to put them into those sections.

2. More detailed suggestions on individual sections

"Zoe Quinn controversies": "Gamergame as a movement"" "Individual harassment":
 * "...and linked to this post in forums known to be opposed to feminism in video games" -> I don't think either of the sources you cite quite say this. One says the forums had a history of harassing women gamers, which is a stronger claim than being opposed to feminism, and the other is a bit closer, "known for their antipathy toward female and progressive game developers".  However, as both are opinions, I think it would be simpler and more accurate to say "...and linked to this post in online forums known to condone hostile reactions to Quinn in the past (including Penny Arcade, Something Awful, and 4chan)".  I think this would tie back in the previous paragraph and flow on to the next sentence more smoothly.
 * "On the basis of Gjoni's apparent encouragement towards those harassing Quinn..." -> I think this should be moved to a new paragraph at the end of this section; fully explain the harassment before going into the legal stuff.
 * The sentence starting "A panel of four Gamergate supporters..." is a bit hard to parse. Could you instead write something like "The Society of Professional Journalists selected a panel of four Gamergate supporters to nominate representatives for a 2015 debate.  This selection panel put forward a debating panel consisting of..."
 * I believe that John "TotalBiscuit" Bain has publicly stated that he isn't a Gamergate supporter, so even though what you wrote is technically true, I think it would be better if you ended that paragraph with a caveat stating that he initially supported Gamergate in their criticism of the gaming enthusiast press, but later distanced himself from the movement because of the harassment. If there are no secondary sources for that then I understand why you left it out, but if so then I reckon it's better just not to mention him at all because while well below the BLP level it still mischaracterises him.
 * I think you have been a wee bit unfair with the statement "Sarkeesian includes statements like "you're a liar," among the types of harassment women receive". In my opinion, the essential context for her definition is in the source article where she talks about the "day-to-day grind of ‘You're a liar,' ‘You suck'".  The point she is making is that when it is a relentless onslaught, it wears you down - death of a thousand paper cuts.  But the way you phrased it leaves out the volume aspect, so some readers may presume she is just being overly sensitive.
 * Also, I know this is just a draft, but the following sentence about "sea-lioning" does not seem to be connected. I think you may be trying to make a broader point about disagreement over what constitutes harassment? If there are good sources on that, it could be a worthwhile sub-section but I'm not sure where it would best fit.

Thanks for taking the time to read this feedback. Would you mind if I attempted to edit the draft to show you how I thought the structure could work? To me that reorganisation would count as 'gnomish' type stuff, but I won't do anything if you'd rather other people stayed out of it. Throsby (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. Putting cultural conflict first is chronologically viable since it stretches way back, and it was my first impulse to do so. I decided to put it where it is since its strongest connection to the controversy is through "Gamers are Over" which in terms of chronology was one day after the first use of the hashtag. The "Individual Harassment" section is in a very rough state at the moment, but will not be limited as to the POV of who was harassing or being harassed, whether pro, anti, troll, or indeterminate. Sarkeesian about "you're a liar" is meant to connect with sealioning and the spectrum of opinions on what constitutes harassment. That section is just very larval still. Moving the Events section down a notch might be an option, which will be easier to evaluate when the lower sections are written. Responses to coverage will include all POVs and I don't anticipate a standalone Gamergate activities section. The activities can be filed under various topical headings and NPOV advises not to segregate material by apparent POV. I'll examine some of the detailed wording issues later today. Rhoark (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)