Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-21/Special report


 * I think that the majority of commentators accept that while the "slugfest" is more or less between the two groups described, trolling third parties are also involved.
 * There might be a slightly better description than "Wikipedia's GG-specific watchdog-watching group" for those folks over at - which doesn't imply that they have any association with Wikipedia.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Both good points, Rich Farmbrough. "Watchdog-watching group" is itself an editing error. It should have just said "watchdog group". And yeah, it's not a Wikipedia-endorsed website. -Thibbs (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Its funny how I keep seeing people say third party trolls don't exist in this. To the point that some people think its "GamerGate vs. the world". If that makes any sense. GamerPro64  17:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think one problem is that in the beginning, a number of now-topic banned editors loudly sympathized with those trolls and objected to taking any action against them. Pro-GG editors repeatedly claimed that only one side, theirs, was subject to sanctions and blocking, when most of those sanctions and blocks were applied to third-party trolls.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your tagging individual edits as "pro", "anti" and "neutral". These categories are not how editors think of themselves. I think most people working on this article believe they are being neutral and trying to eliminate "bias" from the article, there is disagreement on what this bias is. There are also different narratives (several, at least) that different parties believe the article should tell and what the remaining editors working on this article are trying to do is to map out a structure of the article that doesn't toe a party line and coming to a consensus is very challenging. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said, Liz. I just needed a shorthand and I chose the labels that I hoped would be most readily understood by people who were new to the situation. You may have noticed that I tried to address the gap between the labels for the edits and the sentiments of the editors making the edits in the explanatory text around the graphs and particularly in note 3. -Thibbs (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "most vigilante-abetted public breakups in modern memory" - nice! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Still blowing in the wind
The joke of this great 'debate' is that before any of the events mentioned, the gender debate was stoked by the commercial production of "GAME_JAM", in which some of the key principals participated - a sort of reality TV code-a-thon for a video game. Great efforts were made to inject drama (and Mountain Dew), after which it fell apart. I couldn't even get people to leave a mention of this genesis in the article. Nonetheless, this is the reason why this is such a confused topic - it isn't really a political issue at all. It's a reality TV show gone rogue, with opportunists seizing on any way to stir trouble hiding somewhere in plain sight. Though legitimate issues are mentioned, there is therefore no organization of them into intelligible debates. Wnt (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Were the rape and death threats directed at Anita Sarkeesian and Zoë Quinn before GAME_JAM existed caused by the show? --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point! It has been a while since I looked at this confused topic, and I was not aware of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Wnt (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)