478
479

DramapediaIt is pretty sad that the Wikipedia article for gamergate is still obnoxiously biased after this much time AND admin intervention (self.KotakuInAction)

timothybugjunior が 投稿

I periodically check the article, about once every 2 weeks for the past 8 months, to see if any progress has been made, and it's just so sad every time. Like come on the very first sentence is "The Gamergate controversy is a controversy concerning sexism-" I always stop reading there. The article is so bad that even the first 8 words of the article are 100% biased against the movement.

How the fuck has Wiki not done anything about this yet? I remember there being a huge campaign around november or december to get them to revise the article from a neutral standpoint, we dug up so much shit proving bias with ryulong, and Jimmy Wales himself tried to step in, and somehow 0 progress has been made, the article is still a disastrous piece of shit and is the first thing anyone reads when looking up gamergate. This makes everyone look bad, gamergate, obviously wikipedia, and to some extent even SJWs because of how nuts and skewed it is.

Is it just a lost cause at this point? Is Wikipedia really that shit?

全 114 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Binturung 131ポイント132ポイント  (7子コメント)

The problem lies entirely with the model that Wikipedia uses. One thing I've noticed is that editors get into long winded fights about what is and isn't a reliable source.

And unfortunately for Gamergate, the bad articles came out first, in a big wave. So the anti side had a wealth of sources to pick and choose from, while pro had a handful of controversial sources, blogs, and youtube videos. The last two of which, if I understand correctly, can't be used as a source for a Wiki.

To further hammer home how messed up this model is, an author of the book a Wiki entry is on is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter if the author can point out exactly how the entry is wrong. They cannot correct an article about their content.

It becomes a vicious circle at that point. New articles are going to look to Wikipedia for details, and find the anti sources, and use that information, further increasing the anti Editors array of sources. All they have to do is make the case that the sources with pro articles are not reliable.

It goes to show how easy it is to craft a narrative, then use astroturfing tactics on Wikipedia to validate the narrative. Hell, a coordinated barrage of articles could be used as a spearhead of a propaganda campaign. It's kinda scary to think about, really. Please note, I'm not implying this is what happened for Gamergate.

The bottom line is, Wikipedia is not about the truth, it's not even about facts. It's about perceived facts. And whomever gets the first salvo off is king.

[–]kindraness 57ポイント58ポイント  (0子コメント)

They really need to remove that rule about primary sources because it's fucking bullshit. It makes it absolutely impossible to source certain things and I'm not even sure it's followed consistently. It gives media all the power, and if the media decides not to publish one side, or publishes something in ignorance, their word is taken before the person who actually knows.

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 47ポイント48ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's not even true. If you watch the wiki editors that caused the article to be like it is, you see that they aren't interested in balanced truthful and NPOV articles. Instead, they have a heavy ideological bent and they care more about what wikipedia can do for them than what they can do for wikipedia.

Granted, they're oftend steeped in critical theory and postmodernism to the point that they're not even aware how batshit biased and extreme they are.

But to get back to the source, they'll ignore any claim from a credible source that goes against their narrative and include even tweets if it goes with their narrative.

If you want a simple example of this, read the history and talk page of "journolist"

[–]Radspakr 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

A lot of them were admonished or topic banned for treating it as a battleground but it very much is it's especially true for people RPOD who makes a point of being difficult and acting like a Ray Comfort when challenged on his views.

[–]CasshernSins2 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought we got rid of most of those? Ryulong's gone and last I checked RPOD got topic-banned. How many of the really fucked up aGGs are still around?

[–]GamerGateFan 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

While you covered some points on why the article failed, you missed some of the methodology used which caused this quagmire. The biggest point is that this article was never meant to exist. The anti-gg admins thought it wouldn't last a week and added all sorts of material and category tags like "conspiracy theory" to it that are still present. They steadily trash the article with bias and misleading things then request deletion, it is a pretty standardized method and it goes without any issues all the time, for example they slimed up Cultural Marxism with mysticism and conspiracy then deleted it.

The GamerGate article's biggest failures lies in that it was turned into refuge so it would be deleted in a week, and it probably would of happened, as the journalists were initially silent on the issue and there were scarce sources, but just as it was about to go away, the "journalism industry" cranked up and wrote a great wealth of false material and that stuff was dumped into it and made the slimy mixture of waste a permanent foundation.

[–]Rubykuby 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

It becomes a vicious circle at that point. New articles are going to look to Wikipedia for details, and find the anti sources, and use that information, further increasing the anti Editors array of sources. All they have to do is make the case that the sources with pro articles are not reliable.

Relevant xkcd

[–]SupremeReader 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

blogs, and youtube videos. The last two of which, if I understand correctly, can't be used as a source for a Wiki.

Can. Just not all.

[–]NPerez99 37ポイント38ポイント  (19子コメント)

Sitush has gotten involved. Sitush is unbannable. This will get interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Nonsense

[–]ThisIsFrigglishThe 0.0065% 27ポイント28ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah I have no idea who this guy is but he's apparently shown up in a fucking tank and the Horseman can do little more than get out of his way...

[–]NPerez99 25ポイント26ポイント  (0子コメント)

He makes good points but refuses to edit, which is a bit of a shame but I can see why. If he edits, someone will arbcom him and he's sick of that shit, But yes, everything he says should be fixed. If Wikipedia didn't instantly ban new accounts that touch that page I'd just roll in and do the edits he suggests.

[–]Taylor7500 17ポイント18ポイント  (4子コメント)

This is certainly interesting. He's calling out the other editors for use of meaningless buzzwords and emotional manipulation (eg he asks for "people" instead of "victims").

Looks like it could be fun.

[–]NPerez99 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I hope he has stamina.

[–]Bloodrever 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

When someone with no involvement reads the article I would imagine most of the wording seems odd.

You would have to understand SJW mentality to get why someones main characteristic is "victim"

[–]Taylor7500 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

I understand their mentality, but to an outside observer, calling someone a victim of instead of a person affected by something can sway the reader's opinion.

[–]Bloodrever 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed and if they are meant to be providing nothing but the facts it really has no place.

The dude has the right idea, Keep himself an outside observer and simply point out wording and language that is ether improper or simply illegible

[–]zahlman 16ポイント17ポイント  (5子コメント)

Sitush is unbannable.

What's the history here / what makes this so?

[–]NPerez99 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

Actually I just heard that from someone else, but looking through Sitush talk archives he's like teflon at every arbcom

[–]PratzStrike 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

He's an Auspicious Looshpah (Master Editor II). He has 7 years and 51,000 edits at least under his belt, studied at Peterhouse in Cambridge, and has a buttload of watchers on Wikipedia. This is the equivalent of a pile of arguing staff sergeants and 2nd Lts. seeing a 1-star enter the room.

[–]NPerez99 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

thank you for that apt analogy

[–]Runsta 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

+1 on the curiosity of this as well. Who is this guy and how does he get that imbedded into the organization?

[–]NPerez99 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look at his user page, he has the silver star of integrity. He's been editing for a long time, and fairly.

[–]Bloodrever 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

He is tearing into the language used. If anything at least the article will be more legible :)

**Edit**

Don't quote policy and guidelines at me, PTF - I can blow you out of the water doing that sort of stuff. I'm not going to edit the article because it is a cesspit. If you know what is going on then you can fix it.

Oh damn thems some fighting words

[–]denshi 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Holy cow, it turns out Wikipedia actually has one editor worthy of the name.

[–]SupremeReader 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Phil Fish, who was hacked and doxed Is Fish a robot?

My sides got hacked off to Mars.

[–]Grampy_Bone 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Money line: "Seems pretty easy to me: adopt a correct usage of the English language." Lulz

[–]NPerez99 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is gon be popcorn good, you guys.

[–]GooberGobias 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not going to edit the article because it is a cesspit.

Welp, so much for that guy.

[–]vaoe 27ポイント28ポイント  (0子コメント)

"If a lie is repeated enough, it becomes the truth." - Wikipedia's motto.

[–]Dwavenhobble 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

Every time we try more of the Wiki community steps in or they pull in more of the SJW side.

There have been admin not seen on the site in years re-emerging to ban people.

Hell under wikipedia's own rules pretty much admin can go power mad and you have to accept they can do no wrong.

Literally all the SJW resources are being poured into defending it.

At this stage we wait and then when the time is right we strike while they're distracted.

Until then it's fighting wiki bureaucracy and even if you can fight through all of that then they'll change the rules or just outright act against them. E.G. I got permabanned and even recently I've had an admin there sound shocked at what happened and even more shocked when I pointed out the way the appeals committee acted.

You have to consider some people have pretty heavy investments in holding this one up and with the likes of college courses in Women's studies etc giving extra credit to those who add feminist theory to popular wikipedia articles it's a fight against the absolute core of the enemies forces really.

Hell wikipedias own lax rules on sources not needing to present verifiable information is a right one. At this stage anyone could pay and have a paper published in a sham journal and then link it on wikipedia. I'm half tempted to get one of the fake science journals to publish a piece on #Gamergate and then source it on wikipedia

[–]ev1lb1t 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

That "storming wikipedia" initiative by feminists really highlights the hypocrisy of wikipedia.

It was basically a federally funded 4chan raid on wikipedia, but when alerted, the admins opened the door and rolled out the red carpet for these bigoted harridans.

From that point I stopped trusting anything on their site even remotely connected to politics, gender, or feminism.

[–]AllMightyReginald 13ポイント14ポイント  (12子コメント)

You think that's shit? Have you checked out ryulong's personal article on gamergate?

[–]BuddhaFacepalmed 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

Hasn't rationalwiki had enough of ryulong's bullshit yet?

[–]StukaLied 16ポイント17ポイント  (7子コメント)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ryulong

They actually were getting pissed off at him for being a nuisance, but then reneged and circled their wagon to protect this nutball so that "gamergate" wouldn't "win."

[–]Torchiest 19ポイント20ポイント  (5子コメント)

Holy shit. There's a "Timeline of Gamergate" article on Rational Wiki, and he's feverishly editing it almost daily. Hilarious and sad that a site billed as "rational" is so bloated with such spittle-encrusted blatherings. In a way, he's probably happier there, as that kind of article would never pass muster at Wikipedia.

[–]zahlman 14ポイント15ポイント  (2子コメント)

It seems to be a good rule of thumb now that if you have to call yourself something simple and reasonable and positive-sounding, like "rational" or "fair" or "just" or "anti-fascist", you probably aren't actually anything like that.

[–]SupremeReader 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

"People's" "Democratic" "Republic"

[–]JQuiltyJohn Quilty, TechRaptor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are now a mod of r Seoul

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

RationalWiki is "rational" pretty much for the sole purpose of posturing as the sane side in the arguments they get into.

[–]pieuvre776 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

They might as well call themselves Always Right How Dare You Question Us Wiki.

[–]AllMightyReginald 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of course. Introducing any hint of being neutral means gamergate wins. That's the rational way.

[–]ev1lb1t 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I heard ryulong has had a falling out with rationalwiki and been banished to an outlying part of their clique.

[–]its_never_lupus 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

You mean rationalwiki? or is there something even more deranged out there?

[–]timothybugjunior[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

oh god no

[–]DeeDoubsFounder of Kek's Giving Day 48ポイント49ポイント  (14子コメント)

Is it just a lost cause at this point?

Yes. Unless a mainstream journalist (and probably only if they are a left-pov publication) starts openly attacking the GamerGate narrative, there will be no fixing the Wikipedia GamerGate article because they only use a fairly limited subset of views and for ongoing controversies those will always be major media sources. It's also an uphill battle due to biased admins. Honestly that's why stuff like Airplay is important, because that's the sort of thing that might lead to some actual coverage. Probably not, but maybe.

Is Wikipedia really that shit?

For anything even remotely political in nature, yes.

[–]analpumping 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

Unless a mainstream journalist (and probably only if they are a left-pov publication) starts openly attacking the GamerGate narrative

It's worth noting that one of the main reasons why this is so improbable is because of how ridiculous the article is in the first place. Today's journalists don't have time to do legitimate research on subjects; they simply go to wikipedia to get the gist of things and report that - creating a cycle where wikipedia ends up sourcing "research" that was done on wikipedia and effectively turning what may have started as a twitter rumor into a "true" fact. It's sad to me that so many of us on the left seem okay with this because it's being used for our interests at the moment; blissfully unaware that all swords are double-edged and it's only a matter of time before the right uses this exact same bullshit against us.

One of the biggest things that all this has done for me is make me realize just how terrible all of our media (not just video game related) is, and how desperately we need reform. Treating news as just another business and rewarding companies based on how eye-catching their headlines are and how deeply their political leanings match the consumer, while doing nothing to penalize them for blatant inaccuracies, is going to have an absurdly heavy cost for our civilization that we'll all have to pay.

[–]Fedorable_Lapras 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Today's journalists don't have time to do legitimate research on subjects; they simply go to wikipedia to get the gist of things and report that - creating a cycle where wikipedia ends up sourcing "research" that was done on wikipedia and effectively turning what may have started as a twitter rumor into a "true" fact.

Citogenesis.

[–]GooberGobias 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

One of the biggest things that all this has done for me is make me realize just how terrible all of our media (not just video game related) is

This is gamergate's greatest victory. I no longer trust anything I read.

[–]NPerez99 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Nonsense

Some editors getting involved are really tearing it apart, there is hope!

[–]Danielle_S 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

love that dismissal of 'go read the archives'. So you can read 42 pages of agenda pushing.

[–]HeritageTanker 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

For anything even remotely political in nature, yes.

And you're not kidding about the "remotely" part, either. The economic and legal articles on Wikipedia have been gradually devolving, to the point that they're unusable now.

[–]its_never_lupus 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Most likely any journalist who dares will be attacked and dismissed as a source, they went for David Auerbach when he stepped a little out of line.

[–]DeeDoubsFounder of Kek's Giving Day 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Who is they? SJWs or Wikipedia?

[–]its_never_lupus 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Auerbach was told by wikipedians that his article was not a reliable source for the things he himself said.

I think he wrote a piece in Slate about the experience.

[–]DeeDoubsFounder of Kek's Giving Day 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, and that's absolutely maddening. But that was quite a while ago and is a big part of what triggered the first ArbCom I think.

[–]WilburCharlotte 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is there a difference?

[–]HTL2001Thoughtful Poster 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

For anything even remotely political in nature, yes.

Or something that's been made political internally. I forget the exact reference but there was something about what was the correct translation of a word, on an article that was 'owned' by one of the entrenched.

[–]richmomz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It never had a chance to begin with. There's no credible peer review process or source evaluation method - just a handful of power-users dictating reality and arbitrarily enforcing rules.

[–]dathom 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I use it only for completely fact based things: dates, numbers, locations, etc.. I don't think I've used it for learning biographical, historical, political, or anything in between in like 6 years.

[–]Loftyz47 39ポイント40ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't think the GG wiki article is going to change anytime soon. Wikipedia doesn't exist to document the truth, it exists to reprint what the Reliable Sources say.

Articles on hard sciences can be trusted since their RS are academic journals and studies. However, articles on events cannot be trusted as much, since their RS are reports from journalists, who can get the facts wrong or intentionally lie. It gets worse when that event is some kind of polarising scandal like GG, and even worse when it's a journalism scandal, because wikipedia is going to source journalists as RS to explain that journalism scandal, which is a fullproof plan (Kotaku investigates Kotaku and found there was no wrongdoing by Kotaku). It's even more polarising because the event involves 'social justice', which many journalists of Marysue and Guardian prescribe to. And let's not forget: 4 users controlling the page with 49% of all edits, endless 'last warnings' to Red Pen, Ryulong, Bernstein, etc, as they editwar and harrass editors, but only 1 strike required to ban Titanium Dragon and others for significantly less.

Basically, everything that causes wikibias has beautifully come together to create the ultimate shitstorm that even Arbcom couldn't solve. Which is why I hate when people say "When will the GG wiki article be fixed?". The article isn't broken. Apart from systematic problems like different treatment of editors in regards to rules, Wikipedia is functioning exactly as intended.

Show Jimmy Wales you have a red chair and he'll ask for a secondary reliable source. If the RS only say you have a green table, then that becomes wikitruth because the encyclopedia's stated aim is 'Verifiability, not Truth' (except when it concerns themselves) and any editor pointing to the red chair will be accused of conducting 'original research', a violation of WP:NOR, and topic-banned.

[–]ev1lb1t 20ポイント21ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you want a laugh, look up wiki articles on feminism and those critical of feminism.

Feminists have access to university presses which are the only "reliable sources" accepted by the WP:OWNers and viciously guard those presses against interloping dissenters.

Thus, feminist articles are amazingly biased propaganda, and critics are dismissed as crackpots, despite the spectacularly public (and tragic) failure of the "gender theory" behind modern feminism.

[–]Torchiest 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

God, that link sent me into a miserable spiral of research and videos that has me writing off society completely.

[–]ev1lb1t 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Welcome to the real world of misanthropy.

You have my apologies for dragging you there.

[–]ev1lb1t 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

The perfect rebuttal to anyone linking the gamergate article from wikipedia is to link their article on Adolf Hitler and note the ludicrous difference in treatment.

Apparently 6 million jews dead and most of Europe in ruins falls below a handful of women "harassed" on the progressive stack.

[–]xxXRetardistXxxBanned from Wikipedia and Ghazi and Reddit 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't bother. The article now has unique sanctions that make it impossible for anyone new to go near it

[–]eaton80 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

As long as the college feminist "storm Wikipedia" project continues to give out gender studies college credit for wiki edits, we are fighting against economic forces and formidable vested interests.

[–]Runsta 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As much as I'm inclined to agree, remember we are taking on multiple corporations worth millions, give it time.

[–]Qucumatz 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

Is it just a lost cause at this point? Is Wikipedia really that shit?

look at the mens rights article. the MRM was able to fix their article after the feminists tried to take it over a few years ago. gg really doesn't have any excuse for the shape it's article is in.

[–]theone89944k and /r/Gawker GET 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

How did they fix their article?

[–]ev1lb1t 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

Several people associated with AVFM are veteran wikipedia editors with years of edits behind them. They could not be dismissed as sock puppets or SPA's.

This only goes so far, though. If I remember correctly you still can't even link to AVFM from AVFM's own WP page because it's classified as "not WP:RS" and was actually on the spam list.

Add to that the 2nd wave feminists associated with the MRM like Pizzey and Young, who are familiar with the processes of academic bickering, and the MRM is actually pretty well armed to take on the well-trained baiting and wikilawyering done by SJW wikipedia editors.

[–]Runsta 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Any way we can contact these guys for help? I'm not familiar with the workings of the movement, nor am I adequately familiar with wikipedia to be able to even start.

[–]Interlapse 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a good idea, but would probably need more "reliable" sources to make truly unbiased articles. The problem is aGG controls almost every single one of them. Kain has made neutral pieces, but other writers made aGG pieces for Forbes. Breitbart is not considered a reliable source because rightwing=lies every day of the week on wikipedia. While Kotaku is considered a reliable source to clear Kotaku of wrongdoing for some misterious reason, because in theory primary sources are not valid in wikipedia, so whatever Kotaku says about Kotaku should not be valid.

[–]ev1lb1t 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The issue is contacting them and getting them involved would simply validate the raving conspiracy theories of "gamergate=mra conspiracy" from the raving lunatics who have taken over the GG wikipedia entry and have lines all the way into the admins.

It worked for the Men's Rights and AVFM wikis because whinging "mra's are editing the men's rights wiki entries" rings rather hollow.

At this point the entire GG article has become absolutely radioactive, and escalation of the situation has resulted in many editors with half a decade+ of experience either leaving in disgust or being perma-banned for daring to contradict the SJW party line.

[–]APGJesseAPGNation 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

Soooooo what can be done?

[–]mracidglee16k get 5ポイント6ポイント  (14子コメント)

  • Make 500 edits and start engaging with the rules lawyer antis who camp the page

  • Get TechRaptor et al to be a RS for video games

  • Find an angle which gets a journalist at an RS interested in this mess.

[–]MacHaggis 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

Make 500 edits and start engaging with the rules lawyer antis who camp the page

That is an impossible task. Some of the anti-GG trolls show activity on wikipedia for up to 18 hours/day. I don't know about you, but most of us got jobs and/or families to attent to and would like to play videogames at night.

You are trying to defy a group that has literally no life outside the internet, that is why we'll never gain control of the wikipedia article.

[–]mracidglee16k get 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

They're limited to one revert per day and there are thousands of us. And we're right, which should help in the long run.

[–]Runsta 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

This would still be a monumental undertaking, and perhaps a lower priority to our resources than continuing to apply pressure to gawker et al. That said, if #gg looks like it wants to make this a priority, then this is something I'll certainly be happy to help.

[–]seanthestone 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Gleppitygogodancers are literally raping our truthful article and making us feel unsafe!"

[–]GooberGobias 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are trying to defy a group that has literally no life outside the internet, that is why we'll never gain control of the wikipedia article.

Ugh, that kind of bullshit is why I stopped playing Ingress, I couldn't compete with the unemployed. With a game you can just stop playing, but this shit is real life, fuck.

[–]NoOneWhere 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

1 Only gets you banned faster

2 Tried and failed due to an overwhelming amount of SJWs&groupies who control the 'RS list'. Basically anything 'leftwing' is RS those days, and anything 'rightwing' (by US standards) is considered controversial. It's amazingly despicable (note, I'm an socialist/social-liberal).

3) You'll need to evade the SJW 'head journalist's. (Eg the one at the Guardian of the Tech-department)

[–]solariant[🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sorry but your #2 is nonsense - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal

This shows quite clearly that there are several "right wing" (conservative) US and UK sources which are considered perfectly reliable.

[–]nodeworxVoting for 2015 Hugo Awards Ends July 31 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You do realize that KiA isn't really the sub to link to wikipedia and expect anything else than an incredulous look and a headshake?

That said, this whole business of a politically challanged selection of permitted secondary sources is a large part of what is doing wikipedia in at the moment.

Places like the conservapedia wouldn't be growing the way they do without wikipedia dropping the ball this badly.

[–]solariant[🍰] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

But in this case it's a primary source, because we're actually talking about Wikipedia, not using Wikipedia to "prove" facts about something else - so to give it an incredulous look and a headshake would be an illogical response. And as I am making this point in an online debate, and not on a Wikipedia page itself, I'm perfectly within my rights to use primary sources.

[–]nodeworxVoting for 2015 Hugo Awards Ends July 31 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ooh, congrats on the cakeday btw...

You sort of hit a sore point there accidentally and I did go off a little half-cocked...

A lot of problems with wikipedia is the fact, that primary sources are out of bounds, even if cases where it would really make sense, so it tends to rely on biased secondary sources that are more interested in pushing an agenda than in the very neutral tone wikipedia is supposed to show.

We very rightly shouldn't be making the same mistakes. Primary sources count for something.

[–]Agkistro13 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's the part I don't get. This isn't October anymore- there are a good number of sources who have written pro or netural GG articles, from Breitbart (at least a reliable of a source as the Guardian) to Tech Raptor to Forbes Magazine- it should be a simple matter to cite them and fix the article. Does WIkipedia just have a "If it's not left wing, it's not reliable" rule or what?

[–]AriusEx 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Does WIkipedia just have a "If it's not left wing, it's not reliable" rule or what?

That was the general result when people tried to make good faith efforts to edit the page last year. Breitbart articles on GG were removed almost as soon as they were edited in by people like ryu who hovered over the article at all hours of the day and night. If it went to arbitration the fact that there are several "reputable sources" proclaiming that GG is a harassment campaign meant that the odd article by Milo or Kain could be easily dismissed.

I'm sure there's a timeline of that whole fiasco with Ryulong somewhere, because it was like watching a slow motion train wreck.

[–]Sockpuppet30342 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

If it's not left wing, it's not reliable

It's closer to "If we don't agree with it, it's not reliable" but basically, yeah.

[–]its_never_lupus 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Get TechRaptor et al to be a RS for video games"

How? There are plenty of wiki pages where blog posts, trade journals, tweets and company websites are accepted as sources. The GG article is a special case and the normal rules of Wikipedia don't apply.

[–]DineLointHarpie 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you're concerned about the abysmal state of Wikipedia just a heads up to check us out on /r/wikiinaction

[–]SoullessTechnocrat 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes; Wikipedia is really that shit. How are you surpised? It's been like this ever since Wikipedia was a thing.

[–]Angle_of_the_Dangle 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I personally do not mind it.

After some thought, a truly neutral look at gamergate would be far more scathing than the farcical shit they have posted right now.

They are too blinded by bias to see that though.

[–]madhousechildHad to tweet *three times* 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Kinda true; we've had a person or two wander in after reading the Wikipedia article and knowing something was up.

I never knew Wikipedia was so blatantly corrupt and biased. I knew they had weird, inscrutable policies, which is why I stopped trying to edit pages, but I never knew they were like the Mafia.

[–]Runsta 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

pretty much, when an institution that is trusted by the masses as wikipedia shows it's corrupt side, it has really added validity to our talking points about ethics. It has been a beneficial recruiting tool overall, especially when compared with serious historical events.

[–]ClitInstantWoodThe Bear GG 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wikipedia is just a sham and Jimmy Wales is a crooked bag of shit. He used volunteers all around the world to create a great tool but subverted it to use for personal gains. I hope you are saving the share you earn from your cohorts for manipulating and protecting specific articles because your little scheme isn't going to last for long, people are waking up.

[–]mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Archive links for this post:

I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

[–]Limon_LimeSeven-37k Get. Eleven more drug deals. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They do it for free.

[–]Radspakr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

One of the many down sides of criticizing the media, the media don't just absolve themselves and defend their practices, they are established and used as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Most of our more Reliable sources were pretty much thrown out ages ago thanks to assholes like Ryulong and RPOD. They don't accept any of our usual sources since they regard them as blogs or have issues.

They won't accept our sources to outline our views on our movement.

[–]Katallaxis 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wikipedia's new slogan:

'The world, according to clickbait'

[–]Qvar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was reaing a long comment and thinking "wow this guy is a dumbass". Turns out it was this Berenstein dude I've heard so much about.

[–]dingoperson2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How about the Canadian Ombudsman answer about Eron Gonji? That's surely a reliable source?

[–]richmomz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's a reason why academia doesn't take Wikipedia seriously. Simply put, it's not a knowledge resource - it's a "narrative by consensus" resource with no credible peer review process, or even a consistent definition of what constitutes a credible source.

[–]Non-negotiable -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

The Gamergate controversy is a controversy concerning sexism-"

Is it wrong?

A lot of this subreddit's members say that fighting erroneous claims of sexism, and other typical SJW-shite, (sometimes any claim, even those that are entirely of a person's opinion and not accompanied with any sort of demands or call to action) is what Gamergate should be doing. That has nothing to do with ethics in journalism, so Gamergate can't be said to be about just that.

Is this paragraph wrong, or is it the way that Gamergate has been shown to the public?

The term Gamergate has come to represent not only the controversy, but also the amorphous grouping represented by those using the Twitter hashtag. Some of the people using the gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics.

My problem with it is the lack of citations and poor writing in general but the information isn't necessarily incorrect, just presented in a shitty manner.

[–]nusuth 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

just presented in a shitty manner.

It's presented in a knowingly biased manner. It's not just shitty writing. Word choice and phrasing can be used to make almost anything look bad.

some of the people
have said their goal is to improve ethical standards
by opposing social criticism
which they say
is the result of a conspiracy among ....

Imagine if this was posed the other way

some people opposed to gamergate
claim that some notable women have been sent anonymous internet threats
over their efforts to inject their own political agendas into gaming
which some critics say
are actually thinly veiled misogyny.

You think the current crop of WP:OWN would let that wording through even though it's "not necessarily incorrect"?

The way the paragraph is written actively diminishes the relative role of ethics by saying "some", then immediately dismisses those ethical concerns as "opposing social criticism of games". They also say GG believes in a "conspiracy" (because they're crazy people) among all feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics (not just a handful).

A much more accurate, though admittedly not perfect way, of putting it:

"The stated belief of GG is that there exist many inappropriate relationships among indie game developers and the online gaming press. It also believes it's in the best interest of gamers, developers and the press to disclose these relationships. Evidence of broad industry collusion to push particular narratives (indie game dev mailing list) serves to illustrate why such disclosure is necessary."

[–]Non-negotiable 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

"The stated belief of GG is that there exist many inappropriate relationships among indie game developers and the online gaming press. It also believes it's in the best interest of gamers, developers and the press to disclose these relationships. Evidence of broad industry collusion to push particular narratives (indie game dev mailing list) serves to illustrate why such disclosure is necessary."

That completely ignores the constant fight against SJWs and forays into gender/identity politics though. The two paragraphs, that I agree are poorly written by using too many qualifiers, describe the two main things that GG says it's about; fighting invasive and poor thought-out feminism that's creeped into gaming publications and parts of the industry (concerning sexism =/= being sexist, I honestly have no problem with that sentence as, from my perspective, it's certainly true) and ethics in gaming journalism.

They also don't dismiss the concerns by saying that GG has, historically, been against social criticism in game reviews.. The conspiracy is that there is collusion among feminists, gaming publications and their friends to promote a narrative. Is it wrong to say that some of GG believes that?

The main problem, imo, is the use of qualifers like "some" and the lack of citations (they say there is a conspiracy, so link to some GG posts about the conspiracy for evidence so people can have some context). It's a shame that two who paragraphs don't contain a single citation to provide context.

Some of your complaints, if I'm going to be perfectly honest, come off as looking for something to be offended about. They shouldn't just present GG as a one-sided fight against unethical actions on journalism because that isn't what GG has done and still does. A large part of the community still seems more focused on gender politics than it does ethics in journalism.

KiA has largely been a refuge of just ethics though, it's why I post/browse here but avoid most other sources of GG news.

[–]nusuth 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That completely ignores the constant fight against SJWs and forays into gender/identity politics though

Well, I was just addressing that one particular paragraph which only mentions fighting social criticism in the context of feminists, progressives, etc. I wouldn't expect one paragraph to encapsulate the larger topic.

"Evidence of broad industry collusion to push particular narratives" would be a launching off point into the SJW and gender politics.

poorly written by using too many qualifiers, describe the two main things that GG says it's about

But it doesn't. It purposefully misrepresents one of those points as fighting against social criticism in gaming GGers supposedly believe is part of a conspiracy. i.e. GGers just hate having their culture criticized, not the fact that a bunch of people have colluded to force a narrative on gamers. That's a pretty critical distinction and one that's designed to make GG seem petty and delusional.

They also don't dismiss the concerns by saying that GG has, historically, been against social criticism in game reviews.

Well for one, they don't mention anything about "historically", and two, they dismiss the concerns by labeling them a conspiracy. e.g. those people are conspiracy nuts.

The conspiracy is that there is collusion among feminists, gaming publications and their friends to promote a narrative. Is it wrong to say that some of GG believes that?

Conspiracy and collusion carry different associations in people's heads. Also, I'd say GG would say they see collusion between very particular groups of feminists, online gaming journalists, etc. GG doesn't believe Sommers is in on it for instance. By simply claiming Feminists, Progressives, Journalists, it makes it seem as if GG is set up in opposition to every person who describes themselves as such when in fact, a lot of GGers consider themselves progressives and feminists.

They shouldn't just present GG as a one-sided fight against unethical actions on journalism because that isn't what GG has done and still does. A large part of the community still seems more focused on gender politics than it does ethics in journalism.

I'd agree. But I'd be very careful to make distinctions about motivations. If I really just hate feminism, that's very different from not wanting a feminist narrative forced onto a community through corrupt journalists. Even a lot of the [Drama] threads have some value in the larger context. If an active abuser is starting abuse prevention initiatives and is getting good press about it, there's value in reminding people they are an abuser.

[–]STOTTINMAD 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Welcome to the modern day. These people wouldn't know impartiality if it slapped them in the face.

[–]Ben--Affleck 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look at Anita's page for some puke-worthy stuff.

[–]TheLastAzaranian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, the fact that editing the talk page, where concensus is built, unless you have 500+ edits (something that only worked to silence pro-GG and neutral voiced, while leaving antis free to do as they please) really impedes progress on the article. Another thing is that you are not allowed to use primary sources, as they will inevitably be called "original reaserch". IN fact, wikipedia is a place wher if the New York Times or CNN reported it, it must be fact, because they are "reliable sources" in everything, including gaming. Despite the fact that they are not a gaming outlet, and the editors probably let them publish anything in the gaming section because they know absolutely nothing about gaming because they are not gamers and trust the judgement of the "journalist". If its written in the NYT, its Gospel to Wilipedia. Also, there is a LOT of biased interpretation of the articles, which are much more neutral than the wikipedia piece. If anything it was better when Ryulong was there, at least with him, the original tone of the sources was emulated. With him gone, narrative-spinning and biased interpretations have run amock, and more experienced social-justice-oriented editors, more experienced than Pro- or neutral- editors, who have signed up to fix the article, are given priority in all their opinions because theya re older, and therefore "wiser".

[–]wowww_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because there's not enough "good" sources, in their view?

[–]mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Archive links for this discussion:

I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

[–]DwarfGate 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

So has Jimbo Wales explained why he's being a bitch and not banning the feminists or is he okay with his site's credibility being driven to hell?

[–]Danielle_S 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

feminists

I doubt they are.

[–]Vordrak -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't look at me. I iz am blocked for my 'intimidation' by writing articles about people. There is another big Wikipedia article coming from me but I am taking my time. Had a lot on recently.