Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-28/In focus


 * Speaking as one of the originating editors, back when gamergate was mostly known as a type of ant, I am still astounded and appalled at how much of an evil Koosh ball this subject has become. The sustained intensity and scope of the vitriol has been unique in my experience; in effect Wikipedia had been trolled by the Internet. Small wonder that our usual consensus and resolution mechanisms failed -they were swamped! kencf0618 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I became concerned when I started reading about this ARBCOM decision in outlets that typically don't discuss Wikipedia's machinations, especially with the misleading headlines that ARBCOM is banning all feminists from the site so GG-types can have their way. It sounds like this episode was an internet battle that happened to take place on Wikipedia. I'm glad ARBCOM has handed out the number of bans, admonishments, and the like; disagreements about content should not be allowed to get so far out of control. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This issue of The Signpost has another article - a pair of Op-Eds, to be specific - on this topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is no accident that The Guardian suddenly ran with an obscure and one-sided blog post distorting ArbCom's proposed decision. Of course, somebody fed The Guardian a one-sided "story" during the Private Manning Case, too. Oh, wait, it was the same journalist. Wow, what a coincidence... Carrite (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am  known for being  sometimes critical  of Arbcom  for often taking  too  long  and being  too  lenient  in  concluding  its cases; that's why  I  never actually participate on  Arbcom  cases although  I  read and follow them all. They  have done a grand job  with  gamergate and it  restores my  confdence in  the committee. In  particular, one outcome: Editor is restricted from editing any administrative noticeboards, is one I  will  remember for future use. Arbcom  now needs to  take its own  lead and be faster and sharper with  new cases. We will  see how the new committee handles them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for this. I was alarmed by the Guardian report, even though I suspected it was fairly, shall we say, amarilla. I went straight to the Signpost, but of course, that was last week's issue. Ugly business, this, but perhaps an important reminder not to take out the knives around here. --BDD (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great article, makes a change to have some calm sober reporting of the decision rather than the hysteria that is in most of the media. Seems like the rulings were fair on both sides. One thing I don't understand is why rylong got a topic ban as well as a site ban. Surely the former is redundant - if he is banned from the whole site then what is the point of the topic ban? Little Professor (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for the positive feedback on this article. -- If I had to speculate, my guess would be that even if the site ban is at some point overturned, the topic ban would remain in effect.  Is that correct?  Go   Phightins  !  18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "the "GamerGate" hashtag, which was started in response to concerns about the proximity of relationships between some video game developers and the journalists reviewing their games." is not really accurate without an "ostensibly" thrown in there. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That particular phrase was my doing. I think it's a reasonable way to describe the origins. Even the die-hard antis would concede that that particular hashtag emerged contemporaneously with a controversy about a relationship between a video game developer and a reviewer, even if they dismiss the concerns as a smokescreen for abuse. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid people still haven't understood why the press was concerned, and the premature statement by the ArbCom, which ended up being wrong in fact, being sent out before the decision was actually finalized, didn't precisely help. The support here is merely another symptom of Wikipedia as a secluded ecosystem which rather than gathering the knowledge of humanity gathers the "knowledge" of a subgroup that suffers from such massive selection bias that anyone with an understanding of statistics would discount the outcome as so skewed as to be irredeemable in the short to mid-term. And the decision merely serves to perpetuate that through leniency towards some of the mechanisms by which it is perpetuated - notably sock- and meatpuppetry in disputes. No, disputes should not be allowed to get out of hand to this degree - but that's what admins are there for. When BLP is violated wholesale and nothing is being done, it is not too surprising when people taking an interest into a topic do something to counter it with their own means. Is it right? Not by the "letter of the law". But that's like saying it's not ever right to shoot someone, even if he's just about to shoot an innocent person. The problem is NOT edit wars. The problem is selection bias and gaming the system and using bullying tactics to perpetuate the selection bias. Edit wars are merely a symptom. You can applaud each other as much as you want - as it stands, that's merely stewing in your own grease and will serve little to tackle the fundamental problems that are all too easy to close one's eyes to at the sight of almost 5 million articles. And you can say all you want that dealing with those issues was not the task of the ArbCom - that doesn't change a bit about ArbCom being very much responsible for the consequences of their decisions. --95.90.52.88 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)