29
30

NorthBySouthBaranof edit warring over Gamergate at "List of scandals with the "-gate" suffix" (en.wikipedia.org)

StukaLiedWiA Poet Laureate が 投稿

全 58 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

[–]Wikipedia-Kyohyi 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (6子コメント)

And now PeterTheFourth knowingly continues the edit war through protection knowing the IP can't edit it back. Isn't this Gaming the system?
Edit: And wow, NBSB, and PTF are both misrepresenting the source. From the source linked "The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. " Edit2: Looking at the history on that page, PTF has engaged in a long term campaign on that page to remove that content.

Edit3: Actually looking at the extended confirmed protection policy, I think extended confirmed was used inappropriately. PTF's edit through it clearly advantages him in the edit war that's been going on and disadvantages the IP they were warring with. Full protection is what should have been used to force talk page discussion.

[–]GG_Number_9 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Games media has traditionally always been pretty bad, because it was never a career choice that would give you a stable income, and so it attracted a lot of dubious characters. but Gamers put up with it because we never expected it to be perfect to begin with. And back in the days of print magazines reading games magazines and using the demo CD was a fun way to spend time.

But when it switched to online publishing, things just went completely to hell. It became about writing clickbait to get clicks, and a lot of sites began hiring kids out of college who weren't Gamers, and were more interested in preaching all the social justice BS they had picked up in college to their readers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlsiStPp_OA&t=2m26s

The incident with Nathan Grayson just became the proverbial straw.

[–]EtherMan 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Edit3: Actually looking at the extended confirmed protection policy, I think extended confirmed was used inappropriately. PTF's edit through it clearly advantages him in the edit war that's been going on and disadvantages the IP they were warring with. Full protection is what should have been used to force talk page discussion.

El C refers to the GG arbcom case for the protection, which overrules that... If it actually falls under that case. It's obvious to anything with any level of reading comprehension that the page is quite obviously not about GG or gender related disputes, or people involved in either, so obviously does not at all fall under that case. But hey, can't require that the wikipedia admins actually understand third grade English on the English wikipedia site now can we? That would mean they would actually have to read things... Can't have that.

[–]Wikipedia-Kyohyi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

level of reading comprehension that the page is quite obviously not about GG or gender related disputes, or people involved in either, so obviously does not at all fall under that case. But hey, can't require that the wikipedia admins actually understand third grade English on the English wikipedia site now can we? That would mean they would actually have to read things

The edits do fall under discretionary sanctions, but it does not fall under ARBGG. And you still have to follow protection policy when applying protection under discretionary sanctions.

[–]EtherMan 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The edits do fall under discretionary sanctions, but it does not fall under ARBGG. And you still have to follow protection policy when applying protection under discretionary sanctions.

The edits are within ARBGG as well since the edits are about GG. But that doesn't make the page covered by ARBGG. If a page was covered under that, then all you'd need is to make some completely random mention of GG in any article, then even if reverted, it would suddenly be covered according to that interpretation and that's just not the case.

As for following policy, yes. But policy specifically says you can skip the semi protect if an arb case says so. Not that I see any cause for semi protect on the page either but at least I can see an argument being made for it, unlike the claim that this list is somehow about GG or gender controversies which is a claim I simply find completely absurd.

[–]Wikipedia-Kyohyi 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If the disruption on the page is due to a subsection that AC/DS covers, AC/DS can be used to apply 500/30 to the page. That's what happened here. However there are some pages named in motions from ARBGG that have full ARBCOM authorization on 500/30. This page isn't one of those pages.

It isn't about skipping semi protection. Semi protection would also be wrong due to the edit warring of editors. The only valid form of protection should have been full protection.

[–]EtherMan -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If the disruption on the page is due to a subsection that AC/DS covers, AC/DS can be used to apply 500/30 to the page. That's what happened here. However there are some pages named in motions from ARBGG that have full ARBCOM authorization on 500/30. This page isn't one of those pages.

Only if the case says that's allowed. ARBGG does not say that. It says only pages about GG or Gender controversies or people from those. Not pages that cover GG or gender controversies. Those are very different things.

It isn't about skipping semi protection. Semi protection would also be wrong due to the edit warring of editors. The only valid form of protection should have been full protection.

Well the policy does give the right to semi protect if there is edit warring from new or unregistered users, which there was. I fully agree that it's the wrong thing to do since there was also edit warring by NBSB who would not be covered by that. I just said I can at least see how someone can make an argument for that protection, not that I agree that that would be an appropriate measure.

Full protection, seems a bit over the top without first trying warnings or sanctioning the individual editors in question, but I wouldn't oppose such a protection either and it certainly is allowed, though the policy also says that if it's particular users doing it (which is the case here), then blocking is better in order to not prevent normal editing of the page by others.

[–]EtherMan 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Just spent some time familiarizing myself with that list and the history of the GG entry there. Why is a NYT article that directly contradicts the harassment narrative being used as a source to claim that it is? Nothing in the description is presented in the article. Was there at some point a longer text with other sources and where the text sourced from the NYT article has now been stripped, along with the source supporting the current description or what's going on? Can't find any such situation in the history of the page.

The article even goes out of its way to say that the harassment is not from GG. Multiple times it very clearly states it's about ethics and criticism of journalism.

I mean, I know NYT has a several articles these days claiming GG is responsible for Hitler and all, but why is one of the few sources that are actually accurately pointing out it's not GG, being used here to support that it is?

[–]MacHaggis 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

don't jump on the cuckoo train. Let the crazies fight among themselves.

[–]EtherMan 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh I have no intention of jumping on that train. I just find that source being used there to be quite... odd ^_^;

[–]EtherMan 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (1子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix&diff=next&oldid=773734257

Apparantly El C thinks a list of scandals with the gate suffix, is an article about GG or gender related dispute or controversy... Quite interesting... So... GG is apparantly responsible for Watergate as well then... Who the hell keeps authorizing all these uses of the GG time machine and when the hell do I get my turn? >_<

[–]APDSmith 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You already had your turn! It was tomorrow!

[–]NVLibrarian 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (30子コメント)

NorthBySouthB did edit about Gamergate in this article, so if they're under a topic ban, they did break it. If it's just a page ban, then no they didn't.

As for the edit itself, Gamergaters say that GG is about journalistic ethics, regardless of whether that's true, so it would be fair for the article to mention it, with its criticism.

[–]GG_Number_9 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Naaa, it's just a fig leaf. We all hate women for no reason and are trying to save gaming by declaring Jihad on irrelevant Twine coders.

[–]NVLibrarian 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (24子コメント)

Yeah, but do you have a source for that?

[–]GG_Number_9 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (22子コメント)

A better question is how the heck do you get sources saying it's about harassment? How do journos manage to reach such a conclusion when they never talk to us, when none of us have ever gotten arrested, and no proof of any actual crimes exists?

[–]NVLibrarian -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (21子コメント)

I thought about it and my conclusion is this: Wikipedia should have two goals: 1) Be exactly as biased as the overall media--which includes newspapers AND magazines AND scientific studies AND textbooks AND other nonfiction books and so on--by treating all reliable sources with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. That way it serves the public by making information organized and accessible. 2) Be ready to adopt a fair and practical way of being less biased than the overall media should such a method become available at some point in the future because, unfortunately, none exists right now that would work.

If Wikipedia allowed people to use their gut and subjective sense of what is true or even firsthand witness accounts, it wouldn't be able to function. There would be no Wikipedia at all. And, frustrating and fucked up as the place is, right now, it's better to have Wikipedia than not to have it, if only because most people know how much salt to take with what it tells us.

[–]GG_Number_9 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Right now it got 258 sources, and it looks like it was written by Ryulong. Even to a layman it is obvious that the people camping on it have mental problems.

But if the goal was to keep women out of the gaming industry by convincing them it is a dark and horrible place filled with evil men, then they have had far more success than their fantasy image of what GamerGate is ever had.

Then again, logic has never been the strong suit for those imagining they are fighing to make gaming more inclusive than it already is.

http://i.imgur.com/rR99Rm5.jpg

[–]NVLibrarian 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (19子コメント)

Now that's a more isolated problem. "When an article's consensus version is maintained by a small group of editors whose perspective does not match that of a proportionate cross-section of reliable sources, what do we do?"

[–]GG_Number_9 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Don't even care anymore. But I do know what WE are going to do. Undermine the credibility of Wikipedia in general every chance we get.

Can't take it, don't dish it out.

[–]NVLibrarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Why burn down a house that only needs its roof fixed?

[–]GG_Number_9 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (16子コメント)

GamerGate is the end result of 40 years of pent-up anger. Gamers are never going to turn the other cheek again.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26328105

[–]Neo_Techni 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Asking for sources is racist!

[–]Wikipedia-Kyohyi 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

NBSB appealed his topic ban a bit ago, so he's currently clear to make such edits.

[–]StukaLiedWiA Poet Laureate[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=764292049#Amendment_request:_GamerGate

[–]ggthxnore 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I understand that he's no longer topic banned and that nothing is going to happen to him, but I'm curious if there's any precedent for people facing consequences for lying to get unbanned.

It looks to me like he outright lied to ArbCom and specifically NYB there, though I have no doubt his friends and fellow travelers would be inclined to take a more charitable view of his statements. So much for just wanting to edit shit like Women's Rights National Historical Park without worrying about violating a broad topic ban.

[–]EtherMan 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you can show that he lied, then he can get the tban retroactively applied back on and blocked for having violated it. But that would require that you prove that he did have those intentions prior to filing the repeal, rather than that he decided on that after the tban was lifted. And unless you have logs of him saying so, on wiki, it's unlikely that you'll get anywhere with that...

[–]hmblmfkrwitabgassdik 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (9子コメント)

ten years from now when nobody even remembers what the fuck gamergate is, these idiots will still be diligently whitewashing any place it's mentioned on wikipedia.

[–]GG_Number_9 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (8子コメント)

You are underestimating our capacity to grind, if you think we will have quit in 10 years.

No evil shall last forever. Some day modern academia will collapse as its sources of funding dries up, and it's toxic influence on culture will come to an end. And until that happens GG will be there to fight it.

[–]hmblmfkrwitabgassdik 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm not sure which side you represent but I'm sure some people on the other side will still be fighting. What I meant was that the general internet public wont remember anymore. You guys will be fighting a war only you care about.

[–]EtherMan 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's never been a "war", nor has anyone besides the two sides ever cared about it. So that's no different from today, or day1 of the whole thing.

[–]GG_Number_9 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

If you search for GamerGate on Google News you get 22400 results. Which I think is pretty impressive for people not cared about.

But since the journos cause more nerds to start digging and discovering their BS every time they mention us, I am not complaining.

Parhaps we really did provide the blueprint for anti-Hillary to fight back against the media. But I don't feel the least bit bad about that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/02/05/can-we-forgive-hillary-clinton-for-her-past-war-on-video-games/#68fb59d812aa

No.

[–]EtherMan 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That number only comes from that one side IS the news there. Go out and talk to people, and you'll quickly find that almost no one cares about GG or anti GG.

[–]GG_Number_9 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Perhaps GG is no longer relevant. But we have planted a lot of seeds in young Gamers minds.

[–]EtherMan 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

To some extent. But the vast vast majority of people, does not care because of that. It's still a tiny tiny amount

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

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

    And nerds will always be a small minority. That's kind of what being a nerd means.

    [–]MacHaggis 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    GAMERGAAAAATE!

    I am pretty sure by now that today, this gamergate thing exists only in the heads of 10 or so crazies yelling at each other.

    [–]bryoneill11 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    GamerGate was what started all the fight against SJW hostile takeover over the world. Then came Brexit. Then Trump. In fact everything was blame on GamerGate supporters until they found a new target on Trump supporters and Alt right.

    [–]GG_Number_9 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    As a movement GamerGate is pretty much dead, and the people fighting against the regressive left have moved on to using the Pepe symbol instead.

    Today it's more of a place for Gamers to discuss politics in popular culture, and to play the long game by redpilling young Gamers about how mass media really works.

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

    Hilarious. El C does full page protection, just after PTF makes a MASSIVE change to the description, completely changing out all the existing sources and replacing with others. Full PP is definitely allowed, but hilarious that it's used to protect the version that has the absolute LEAST consensus.

    [–]troushersNeeds a Spider-Man costume and a flight to Berlin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    PeterThe4thrateSPA is getting all hot and sticky over unspecified female journalists taking away his tentacle porn. What a weirdo.

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

    I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

    If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)