The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in
limited circumstances)
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced
trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to
deny recognition and refer to
WP:PSCI,
WP:FALSEBALANCE,
WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards.
Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source?
A1: What sources can be used in Wikipedia is governed by our
reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the
Reliable sources noticeboard.
Q2: I found a
YouTube video, a post on
4chan/
Reddit/
9GAG/
8chan, or a blog that relates to Gamergate. Can I use it as a source in the article?
Q3: Why is Wikipedia preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other?
A3: Content on Wikipedia is required to maintain a
neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, The Wall Street Journal, etc.). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant
edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see
WP:BLP).
Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources?
A4:
Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Wikipedia documents what the reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Wikipedia's role is not to
correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources. In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to
content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Reference ideas for Gamergate (harassment campaign)
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Beyer, Jessica L. (2021). "Trolls and Hacktivists: Political Mobilization from Online Communities". In Rohlinger, Deana A.; Sobieraj, Sarah (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Digital Media Sociology. Oxford University Press. pp. 417–442.
doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197510636.013.47.
ISBN978-0-19-751063-6.
Condis, Megan (2018). "From #GamerGate to Donald Trump: Toxic Masculinity and the Politics of the Alt-Right". Gaming Masculinity: Trolls, Fake Geeks, and the Gendered Battle for Online Culture. University of Iowa Press. pp. 95–106.
ISBN978-1-6093-8566-8.
JSTORj.ctv3dnq9f.12.
Donovan, Joan; Dreyfuss, Emily; Friedberg, Brian (2022). Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
ISBN978-1-63-557864-5.
Jones, Bethan (2018). "#AskELJames, Ghostbusters, and #Gamergate". In Booth, Paul (ed.). A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 415–429.
doi:
10.1002/9781119237211.ch26.
ISBN978-1-1192-3716-7.
Kidd, Dustin (2018). "GamerGate: Gender Perspectives on Social Media". Social Media Freaks: Digital Identity in the Network Society. New York: Routledge.
ISBN978-0-4299-7691-9.
Reyman, Jessica; Sparby, Erika, eds. (2020). Digital Ethics: Rhetoric and Responsibility in Online Aggression. Routledge Studies in Rhetoric and Communication (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
doi:
10.4324/9780429266140.
ISBN978-0-367-21795-2.
S2CID189982687.
Ruffino, Paolo (2018). "GamerGate: Becoming Parasites to Gaming". Future Gaming: Creative Interventions in Video Game Culture. London: Goldsmiths Press. pp. 104–119.
ISBN978-1-90-689755-0.
Salter, Michael (2018). "From Geek Masculinity to Gamergate: The Technological Rationality of Online Abuse". Crime, Media, Culture. 14 (2): 247–264.
doi:
10.1177/1741659017690893.
ISSN1741-6604.
Veale, Kevin (2020). "Introduction: The Breadth of Harassment Culture and Contextualising Gamergate". Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–33.
doi:
10.1007/978-3-030-60410-3_1.
ISBN978-3-030-60410-3.
Zuckerberg, Donna (2018). Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age. Harvard University Press.
ISBN978-0-6749-8982-5.
Reminder: Contentious Topic editing restrictions apply to this talk page as well.
Editors should take note of the warning at the top of this talk page indicating this is a
contentious topic (CT) under active arbitration remedies, to which editing restrictions apply. The
contentious topics procedure applies to all edits and pages across all namespaces, broadly related to a topic, which includes article talk pages. Specifically, editors here should be aware of the requirement that "You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days". Edits in violation of the CT standard restrictions may be reverted, and any single uninvolved administrator is authorized under the CT procedures to impose editor restrictions including sitewide and partial blocks, topic bans and page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic), interaction bans, revert restrictions; as well as page restrictions including page protection, revert restrictions, and others.
⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!05:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Swatjester:, it appears the the talk page is not set up 500/30? Could you (or some other admin do that)? So that underqualified editors can't get into trouble by editing? i suppose some admin should clean up all the outdated admin stuff WRT gamergate -
ForbiddenRocky (
talk)
07:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
At the moment, this particular talk page seems to have cooled down a bit, so I'll leave it to some other admin to put that restriction on if they feel they need to.
⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually there seem to be several cases this month of very new editors with some knowledge of Wikipedia policy either starting new topics or being active in debates on this page - there was another yesterday, and another user with few edits supported the topic-starter in the discussion. If it’s possible to just restrict access that seems like a good idea to me.
Lijil (
talk)
07:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
infobox lists misogyny, anti-feminism and anti-progressivism as motives while the only serious study I have been able to find about Gamersgate supporters seem to indicate the opposite.
Comparisons Between GamerGate and the U.S. Population on Social Values: According to the study, gamersgate population support action against Global warming Affirmative action, Marijuana legalization, Gay marriage, Abortion and Universal healthcare above the U.S. population mean
"Ultimately it appears that the common narrative associating GamerGate with right-wing, regressive White men (Braithwaite, 2016; Horgan, 2019; Romano, 2018) is not supportable, given the current data. Indeed, GamerGate supporters appear to be more left-wing than the general public and also diverse in terms of race, gender, and other demographic variables than is often assumed"
In general, primary studies (especially one like this, that is just a single poll of people's self-described politics) are not great sources. The article does contain much higher-quality sources, eg.[1][2][3][4][5][6] - these are in agreement that misogyny, anti-feminism and anti-progressivism were the primary motives. The paper you present acknowledges itself that the conclusion it draws from its single poll is
WP:FRINGE (even in the quote you presented, cites three others that it seeks to debunk, but only has a single poll of self-described opinions to do so.) If the conclusions they drew from their poll of how people involved in the topic described their own politics were borne out, you'd expect them to be confirmed by other studies, and they haven't been. Ultimately the fact that it's a poll of self-described politics means that it's just about how Gamergate supporters wished to be seen; and we already cover, in the article, the fact that Gamergate supporters made substantial efforts to influence the way they were perceived. But those efforts were (as the massive list of citations above shows) ultimately unsuccessful at convincing people that the sort of responses they gave to eg. the poll in question were actually representative. That sort of thing is why we rely on secondary coverage rather than initial polls - it's not unusual for an author to draw a sweeping conclusion from a poll that isn't borne out later. --
Aquillion (
talk)
17:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
FWIW the paper is also only cited 26 times, with a large number of those cites being to unrelated portions of the paper and not the primary claim about the identities of gamergaters. The paper is also self-contradictory, given that it's single poll actually supports the conclusion quite dramatically that GamerGate is white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender; the paper's authors appear to be only quibbling over the political alignment, not the other demographics. Seems quite fringe to me.
⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!16:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, if gamergate supporters claim that the movement is not about that, shouldn't the article reflect that?, if all the "high quality sources" seem to describe the opposite of what the movement supporters are claiming they support, then maybe those sources are not reliable in the first place.
...at least as a rule of thumb I think people should have the right to define themselves rather than just being labeled by their counterparts (I don't claim information from the opposing view should be removed, but I think any movement should be described first by what the supporters claim they want and in second place the criticism rather than be defined by the criticism).
I quote from reliable sources guideline:
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic,
Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
No. We go with what the reliable sources say, not self-descriptions. If we went by the standard you propose, every corporation would be full of righteous people working to better the world through commerce, and
Stormfront would be 'a community of racial realists'. NPOV does not mean
WP:FALSEBALANCE, we don't give equal validity to self-serving claims.
MrOllie (
talk)
17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, if gamergate supporters claim that the movement is not about that, shouldn't the article reflect that?
WP:MANDY applies. Of course they're going to claim it's not a harassment campaign, because harassment is bad & they don't want people to think they're bad. But reliable sources agree that it is a harassment campaign. So there's no point in putting up any particular GGer's claim that it's not. There is no right to "define" yourself here, because most people are going to use the most self-serving description they can think of, which is why we prefer what secondary sources say.
No, self-ascriptions generally can't be relied upon because humans are almost universally self-serving. We should always go by what the reliable sources state. TarnishedPathtalk11:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I just rewrote the lead slightly to better explain the origin of conspiracy theories about Zoë Quinn. There's a lot in the article about how "ethics in games journalism" was always a smokescreen to cover up the misogynistic abuse of Quinn and others. Seems like the lead should mention this as well. Thoughts? —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
04:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a bit weird for this category to be included given that the word "Vigilantism" isn't mentioned anywhere in the article at any point. Anyone know the specific reason for the inclusion?
Trade (
talk)
15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are definitely sources available on the link, judging by a quick ["gamergate" + "vigilantism"] search. Unless someone wants to do some work on collecting and summarizing them, I'd support removing the category per
WP:CATV's
Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.