Talk:Gamergate
Contents |
[edit] Bias Against Men
| Troll has JAQ'ed off enough. Time for your refractory period |
|---|
|
Why does the artical say that not only are all gamers male but are also a monopolistic group of misogynist who want to dehumanise women? The majority who criticise feminism don't do it because they think men are better then women but because it not only demonise men but also weakens women. The gaming community isn't just perverted trolls, it like feminism is a wide range of people who play games for various reasons. Personally I have not met a signal player who says, "that is how women should be", or "war is glories, I want to join" or "all protagonist should be white males." This site is favouring one particular side of the flame war, without criticising both sides of their ignorance, delusions, bigotry and hypocrisy and there for there needs to be criticism of feminism that is not sexist.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Feminist do see men as the enemy, that is what gender studies and the channel Lifetime movie of the week are about. Feminist are also a unstable movement that see each other as the enemy, because they are divided into race, sexuality, class and religion. If you believe that all female gamers are feminist, then why shouldn't you believe all male players are MRAs?--106.68.23.249 (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
|
[edit] Could we add this to the article?
|
I feel this tweet and included screenshot summarizes the movement pretty well.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Could we get this threat to use nerve gas against Pax East uploaded too? --Naqoyqatsi (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Because the individuals that support Gamergate have put some of the worst people on a pedestal (Roguestar, Chobitcoin, Fart, Ralph, etc.) while there's no one that opposes Gamergate who actively supports anything that might be cherrypicked to end up on that Tumblr you linked to earlier.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
|
[edit] Angry Joe
|
On his "Top 10 Gaming Controversies of 2014!", Gamergate was on top of the list. He did not like either side because they were both bias and hateful, so should there be a double sided perspective to the artical or only from the feminist perspective. Because not everyone who criticises Geek Feminism supports Gamergate.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You did not answer my question, you just trolled me with the word idiot and grammar correction . Do I troll people for making a spelling mistake? No. So you shouldn't either.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
If he doesn't support either side, then why was it on the list to begin with?--106.68.23.249 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
He's likely a lot more Anti-GG then he was in the Vid, because not an hour after he posted it, Some GG DMCA'd it claiming it violated copyright by having 1/3 of his logo on a splash screen. He was talking A LOT of shit too, like how he was totally going to fight it all the way to the courts, until someone filled him in that Joe is part of Maker studios. Maker is owned by Disney, and enjoys full legal protection that entails. Once he realized that, he backed the hell off. --Revolverman (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC) I think we can conclude that the solution to Gamergate is to delete 4chan, 8chan and Reddit.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(responding to the very top post) Being against something is not a "side" in the way implied by the first post. Gamergate is a group, and while there are anti-GG groups, those anti-GG groups do not affect the validity of Gamergate or the validity of being against Gamergate. Narky Sawtooth
|
[edit] Why is it called "Gamergate"?
I couldn't find this in the introduction and as the article is far to long to actually read in the hope the information is there I wonder if anybody could explain? The "gate" suffix usually implies a cover up of some kind - but what is alleged to have been covered up and to what end?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Zoe Quinn (a game developer) sleeping with a game journalist, which was widely interpreted (on very little factual basis) as an example of careerism, corruption & collusion. Gamergate originally referred to this trumped up scandal but ended up as the name for the people who kept shouting about it. Earlier versions of this article explained this more adequately but I think it's been lost in the minutiae. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's a supposed -gate (i.e. a scandal) in gaming journalism. Seems pretty self-explanatory. See the penultimate paragraph of the lead and here, next to the picture of an ant, for relevant information regarding your question. The introduction quote also sums it up pretty well. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I worked on the intro a bit to include some of the basics and leave out some of the redundancy. Is it perfect? No, but it's way better than it was. Of course, once Ryulong wakes up, he'll throw his tantrum and kick and scream until I return to change his diapers. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The original intro treated the meaning of the term a bit more explicitly. Feel free to borrow from it if you want to revise the current intro a bit. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The -gate suffix comes from the Watergate scandal, so basically when they want to name a scandal they take x word and put gate after it Bubba41102 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- What the fuck is your problem JJJS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The original intro treated the meaning of the term a bit more explicitly. Feel free to borrow from it if you want to revise the current intro a bit. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I worked on the intro a bit to include some of the basics and leave out some of the redundancy. Is it perfect? No, but it's way better than it was. Of course, once Ryulong wakes up, he'll throw his tantrum and kick and scream until I return to change his diapers. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bob, it's called Gamergate because some nutjob who was on Firefly named it as such and it stuck.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] True story.
Wikipedia provides the history of England in 113,000 bytes, and gives a cogent analysis of feminism in 119,000 bytes. Ryulong tells the story of a controversy in gamer culture in 180,000 bytes. No wonder Bob can't find what he's looking for. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Heh, when "The Quinnspiracy" started and was the talk everywhere on the intertubes, I was initially left out of the conversation. About 5 minutes of asking the people about what was going on, all I found out was that a guy basically went on a diatribe about his ex-girlfriend, and I immediately lost interest. That's ALL it was; a guy angry at his ex-girlfriend. But molehills and mountains... I hate this topic so much I'd like to remove the "high priority" tag. Can I change it? Really annoyed at constantly seeing this thing in 'recent changes'.CorruptUser (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- You can remove whatever you want, but as long as Ryulong keeps live-blogging the thing and I keep trying to get it down to something shorter than a Joyce novel, recent changes ain't safe. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Dude, take two steps back and look at what you're proposing here. You want to discourage people from editing this because you "hate this topic" and get annoyed from "seeing this thing in recent changes"? Don't go the PRC's route, man. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Proposing" what? Changing the bullshit priority category on this article? ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- So I see two possible responses here:
- "Great riposte! Now also read the stuff following my first sentence and try again."
- "Yes, let's ignore the point I was making and talk about the boring priority categories instead. Spoilsport!"
- "Proposing" what? Changing the bullshit priority category on this article? ωεαşεζόίď
- Pick whichever you like best. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, since neither explain what your point is supposed to be, they're both equally worthless. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not feeling like doing the snarky back-and-forth today. And yay, now CorruptUser went ahead and changed the priority for completely stupid and pitiful reasons. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, since neither explain what your point is supposed to be, they're both equally worthless. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- Pick whichever you like best. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
LOW is too uhh low; I bumped it up to MID. PacWalker 22:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I mean I'd like to give it priority FUCK ALL sometimes, but that's just not accurate. PacWalker 22:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck happened when I was asleep? I was blocked and this page was randomly demoted from bronze by that same jerkoff like what the fuck.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ryu, if you type in your name into google, the first thing to pop up is the story of how you got banned from Wikipedia for excessive editing of GG. The bigger question you should ask is "Does this matter? Does it really? Will anyone give a shit in 5 years? Does it matter SO much that I should add all this detail to the point where I could submit this as my doctoral dissertation?" Figure out what the Rationalwiki mission is all about. We are about providing a resource where, if someone's kooky friend says "hey, check out how Deepak Chopra proves that Homeopathy faked the moon landing", they can just come here and say "no, here is Rationwiki explaining why it's all bullshit". How does an article longer than Atlas Shrugged on GG really fit in with this? CorruptUser (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) --Madman (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
- No CorruptUser, you're wrong. I was banned because I yelled at people who were in Gamergate while I was on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the content I contributed. It's all the interpersonal bullshit where I didn't keep my cool. Everyone under the fucking sun knows that and just because that's what they write about me at ED or whatever godforsaken Gamergate Wiki site they have set up can't change that. And your "brief summary" gets so much basic shit just wrong. Gjoni didn't claim Quinn had sex for reviews, the angry mob did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- See, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. You haven't answered the bigger question; "Why does this article matter?" CorruptUser (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because I have first hand experience with it and I'd prefer to lend my unfortunate "expertise" on the matter while I constantly see updates in real time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, who/how? Hold on a sec, I'm getting sidetracked. That doesn't answer the question. That's why you care about it. I'm asking why it matters to anyone else.CorruptUser (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well I thought that was what you were asking me. But 141.134.75.236 below answers for the wider reason. Gamergate is a clusterfuck of all of the worst things the Internet has to offer: MRAs, feMRAs, wannabe neo-Nazis, actual neo-Nazis, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, pedophile apologists, rape deniers, rape apologists, anti-Semitism, Holocaust deniers, Armenian genocide deniers, Jayne from Firefly, you name it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, who/how? Hold on a sec, I'm getting sidetracked. That doesn't answer the question. That's why you care about it. I'm asking why it matters to anyone else.CorruptUser (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- CorruptUser, the article matters because vitriolic anti-feminist sentiment among gamers is a serious problem and a big fucking deal. Just because it's ugly and you don't want to look at it doesn't mean it's not notable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because I have first hand experience with it and I'd prefer to lend my unfortunate "expertise" on the matter while I constantly see updates in real time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- See, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. You haven't answered the bigger question; "Why does this article matter?" CorruptUser (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Brief summary
I think it's a great idea to have this, though the formatting could use improvement. Since it's just a few lines of text, how about if we put it in a compact little <div> box floating on the right and change the header into non-header <big> text? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's frankly useless, because if people can't gather that information from the intro paragraphs then all hope is lost on them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- ...I'm not sure I'm ready to take your opinion about brevity. Sorry. Having the section is essential. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing personal, but I'm going to edit down the brief summary. I think we should have as FEW details in there as possible. E.g., a brief summary of a(n American) football game is "Giants win Superbowl against Patriots 42-13", not "In 1972, Tom Brady was conceived in the back of his dad's pickup truck...at 3:42 PM march 15th 1985 Eli Manning took a dump...Each blade of grass on the field was bred in Ohio by a farmer named Cooter Jones..." CorruptUser (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your brief summary got shit wrong and if we leave those inaccuracies in it opens up the door for JAQing off. Gjoni didn't accuse her of sleeping around for good reviews. He named dropped one of her partners and let 4chan and Reddit come to that conclusion on their own.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, whatever. Does it meet your standards now?CorruptUser (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your brief summary got shit wrong and if we leave those inaccuracies in it opens up the door for JAQing off. Gjoni didn't accuse her of sleeping around for good reviews. He named dropped one of her partners and let 4chan and Reddit come to that conclusion on their own.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing personal, but I'm going to edit down the brief summary. I think we should have as FEW details in there as possible. E.g., a brief summary of a(n American) football game is "Giants win Superbowl against Patriots 42-13", not "In 1972, Tom Brady was conceived in the back of his dad's pickup truck...at 3:42 PM march 15th 1985 Eli Manning took a dump...Each blade of grass on the field was bred in Ohio by a farmer named Cooter Jones..." CorruptUser (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- ...I'm not sure I'm ready to take your opinion about brevity. Sorry. Having the section is essential. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] So...
What happened to cutting the article down to size? I kind of liked FuzzyCatPotato's proposal for a shortened version. Did that fall through? As it stands now it looks like Ryulong is not letting anybody cut anything out. Just my impression. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your impression isn't far off from my impression. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm up for that but all suggestions for stuff to cut out are central aspects of this rather than some of the latter minutae.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that you seem to consider 95% or more of what is currently there to be "central aspects" when most of the rest of us simply don't see it that way. Alternatively, could we at least reword everything to use fewer words? I think you tend to inject a lot of adverbs and hyperbole.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, there were attempts to hive off each section of the article to separate articles. One of these proposals led to the entire excision of everything under the "Zoe Quinn" header to its own page. How are you supposed to improve a page by cutting out the central events? AgingHippie's cutting back of the Hugo Award shit was beneficial. There's a good lot of stuff that can be cut back with regards to anything from November 2014 onward (namely the content under "Gamergate's inevitable decline").—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- This article needs to be nuked from orbit. The ashes can be used to fertilise a new version of around 20-40% of the current length. Robledo (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can someone come up with a new complaint other than "it's too big" because that was going on months ago. There has been little to no actual criticism with regards to specific content that needs to be removed. All I see every time this page gets on someone's radar is "RYULONG IS A FUCKUP HE'S WRITING TOO MUCH".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone's saying it so it must be wrong. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- No one gives any god damn specific things that have to be cut out. It's all "IT'S TOO BIG" every single time and every time I point out that's the only complaint I have people coming in going "That's not what we're saying and if you can't tell that then you have to step back". NO ONE gives any specific criticism aside from complaining about length. It's not like I can't decide sections are superfluous to the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Several of us have cut out specific things. You invariably put them back in. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Like what?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Goddammit, you're thick as hell. I've never seen such a small capability for reading comprehension. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets 21:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Goddammit, you're thick as hell. I've never seen such a small capability for reading comprehension. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- Like what?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Several of us have cut out specific things. You invariably put them back in. Weaseloid
- No one gives any god damn specific things that have to be cut out. It's all "IT'S TOO BIG" every single time and every time I point out that's the only complaint I have people coming in going "That's not what we're saying and if you can't tell that then you have to step back". NO ONE gives any specific criticism aside from complaining about length. It's not like I can't decide sections are superfluous to the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone's saying it so it must be wrong. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- Can someone come up with a new complaint other than "it's too big" because that was going on months ago. There has been little to no actual criticism with regards to specific content that needs to be removed. All I see every time this page gets on someone's radar is "RYULONG IS A FUCKUP HE'S WRITING TOO MUCH".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that you seem to consider 95% or more of what is currently there to be "central aspects" when most of the rest of us simply don't see it that way. Alternatively, could we at least reword everything to use fewer words? I think you tend to inject a lot of adverbs and hyperbole.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm up for that but all suggestions for stuff to cut out are central aspects of this rather than some of the latter minutae.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- You know what? The mob voted for the shortened version, and if Ryulong don't like it, then so be it. If he doesn't like the mobocracy, then he can fuck right off. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions? 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- You say this but no one did anything about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Lack of effort does not imply lack of desire. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Furthermore, that's bullshit. Sorry Ryulong, there's numerous instances of people trimming stuff and you restoring it. Effort that gets rescinded isn't a lack of effort. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Lack of effort does not imply lack of desire. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- You say this but no one did anything about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm gonna peddle my thoughts: [1] Trim this to 40kb (see here, tho people seem to be doing that right here). [2] Move unnecessary details to Timeline of Gamergate. [3] Move rebuttal-ready details to a Rebuttals to Gamergate page (see here for an incomplete version of that kinda page). [4] Be happy and shit. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your version still has problems. People complaining "it's too long" have nothing constructive to add to this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ryulong, you've spent thousands of characters asking people for specific complaints. Where's the specific complaint here?
- You continue to act as if "the article is too long; cut it down to central details" isn't constructive. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because it isn't constructive. It's just "it's too big" repeated ad infinitum. No one has any specific statements about any specific section aside from Weaseloid's removals in the article earlier. I've cut out like 6 sections already. What else is too long and detailed and should be cut back or cut out?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so let me repeat what everything's been telling you: the article is full of petty minutae that takes away from the main focus of the article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
That rug really tied the room together. 22:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so let me repeat what everything's been telling you: the article is full of petty minutae that takes away from the main focus of the article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- Because it isn't constructive. It's just "it's too big" repeated ad infinitum. No one has any specific statements about any specific section aside from Weaseloid's removals in the article earlier. I've cut out like 6 sections already. What else is too long and detailed and should be cut back or cut out?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I say we take it to the mob whether FCP's version should be implemented. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Don't they call people like you stalkers? 22:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The main page is old and shouldn't be used; Ryulong's updated this page and not that one. I do like the idea of a rebuttals page, though. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sections 6.3, 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11 can all go. Sections 6.2 and 6.5 should both be substantially abridged. Robledo (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would say most of the second half ("Gamergate's inevitable decline" onwards) doesn't need to be in an overview article as it's mostly a blow-by-blow of what Gamergate did next rather than revealing anything new about what it's about, & hence would be better in the timeline or some other spin-off article. Most of the first half is more germane to what GG is about & how it happened, but there's still a lot of needless & repetitive detail there that could be trimmed or condensed. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would say most of the second half ("Gamergate's inevitable decline" onwards) doesn't need to be in an overview article as it's mostly a blow-by-blow of what Gamergate did next rather than revealing anything new about what it's about, & hence would be better in the timeline or some other spin-off article. Most of the first half is more germane to what GG is about & how it happened, but there's still a lot of needless & repetitive detail there that could be trimmed or condensed. Щєазєюіδ
- Sections 6.3, 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11 can all go. Sections 6.2 and 6.5 should both be substantially abridged. Robledo (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I personally have no qualms over article length. My problem is basically that the article sometimes seems to shift from a chronological narrative to addressing specific points across the whole timeline without making this particularly clear or even making up its own mind about which approach it's taking. General-sounding and/or hardly-informative headers like "Conspiracy theories", "Send those emails!", "Gamergate and Wikipedia" and "Attempts to counter Gamergate harassment on Twitter" don't particularly help. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The "conspiracy theories" section is cut. "Gamergate and Wikipedia" is now "Gamergate's invasion of Wikipedia". I'm not sure how "Attempts to coounter Gamergate harassment on Twitter" is remotely general sounding or uninformative. And how do you summarize Gamergate's ridiculous advertisment attack strategy in a single sentence?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you don't need to summarize all of it in one sentence. The header just needs to describe the subject of the section. As to "Attempts to counter etc.", the title sounds like something that would've been (or should've been) happening throughout much of the Gamergate timeline, but it's a subsection of a chronological section ("Gamergate's inevitable decline"). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just having read the section, it's clear that it fits into the chronological narrative, though which November it's referring to is unclear to me. Also, were there no earlier major attempts to counter Gators on Twitter prior to this mysterious November? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Congrats, the Gamergate article is now only the 5th longest, at 150,000 bytes. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Still twice as long as the article on Atheism. CorruptUser (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure how you can really judge the article based on the amount of bytes when approximately 1/4th of it is references. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] RationalWiki? What a lie.
This article is a disgrace.
Rational: adjective, based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings. having the ability to reason or think about things clearly
Yet this article is clearly biased towards one side. There is no discussion about the shit the other side does against GamerGate (just check out KnowYourMeme for a bit of that), no acknowledgement of what the movement has achieved. This "Rational"wiki spews not reason or facts, but bias. Propaganda.
To all who wrote this article, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Yeah, no insults, no harassment. That's more than your side has given me for my beliefs and I've never considered myself a gator until the Honey Badger fiasco.— Unsigned, by: 68.39.135.189 / talk / contribs 03:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! PacWalker 03:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Rational does not equal neutral, genius. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- However, it does ideally involve more goat than this page presently contains. PacWalker 03:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, goats are always nice. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are two links to goats on the page though. Also "just check out KnowYourMeme" is like kindergarten level Gatordom. Go back to the nursery.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Two goats on this page? Child that's a homeopathic dilution. *not being serious at this point* PacWalker 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Reality has a bias against GamerGate. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm upset that Rationwiki won't give both sides to the debate about whether we should bomb Belgium until every last person is dead or at least horribly maimed, and maybe France just to be sure. I mean, unless we give the pro-mutilate side equal weight as the "wtf is wrong with you" side, obviously we aren't doing our job.CorruptUser (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- But the French deserve it! I mean, those filthy cheese eating bastards handballed Ireland out of the 2010 World Cup. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Rollin' around at the speed of sound 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is why Americans prefer to kill each other over the other football. PacWalker 17:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Um, what's wrong with Belgium? They invented fries, you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- But clearly did not know what to do with them afterwards. I mean, mayonnaise?!??! Really? MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- HELL YES. PacWalker 21:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- We Americans on the other hand, take mayonaise, put it on salad, and call it "ranch dressing". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Before you can call it ranch, it needs some buttermilk or yogurt added. Why can't we all be chums, and put vinaigrette on both fries and salad? MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- BECAUSE YOU BUTTER YOUR TOAST ON THE WRONG SIDE! CorruptUser (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- BUTTER YOUR TOAST ON BOTH SIDES! PacWalker 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- WELL, LA DI DA! I GUESS GOOD OLD BACON GREASE ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR SOME PEOPLE. MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- BUTTER YOUR TOAST ON BOTH SIDES! PacWalker 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- BECAUSE YOU BUTTER YOUR TOAST ON THE WRONG SIDE! CorruptUser (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Before you can call it ranch, it needs some buttermilk or yogurt added. Why can't we all be chums, and put vinaigrette on both fries and salad? MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- But clearly did not know what to do with them afterwards. I mean, mayonnaise?!??! Really? MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- This US presidential candidate has the solution for world peace involving the universe's biggest swearword. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- But the French deserve it! I mean, those filthy cheese eating bastards handballed Ireland out of the 2010 World Cup. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- I'm upset that Rationwiki won't give both sides to the debate about whether we should bomb Belgium until every last person is dead or at least horribly maimed, and maybe France just to be sure. I mean, unless we give the pro-mutilate side equal weight as the "wtf is wrong with you" side, obviously we aren't doing our job.CorruptUser (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Reality has a bias against GamerGate. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Two goats on this page? Child that's a homeopathic dilution. *not being serious at this point* PacWalker 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are two links to goats on the page though. Also "just check out KnowYourMeme" is like kindergarten level Gatordom. Go back to the nursery.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, goats are always nice. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- However, it does ideally involve more goat than this page presently contains. PacWalker 03:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Not even bronze
According to our article rating system, a bronze article is: "Article is coherent and free of needless in-jokes, such as irrelevant references to Conservapedia, and the jokes and snark it does contain are balanced with factual content." If you ask me, that doesn't accurately describe this article. Therefore, I have removed the bronze rating unless we can come to a consensus that it meets that criteria. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, you don't get to unilaterally decide that considering when this went down from Silver there was a vote first. There are barely any in-jokes and there is a total of one reference to Conservapedia. Considering this page has nearly 300 references to cite the material within, I think you are blatantly wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Stop removing the fucking Bronze rating. I am fairly certain you do not have the authority to do that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Article is coherent. This is incoherent. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's supposed to be incoherent about it or where the bunch of in-jokes are supposed to be. Mind being more specific? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- What's not coherent about it is that it drowns itself in the details. If you read through the article from top to bottom, there's such an inverse Gish gallop of events and people thrown at you that your head spins because you get lost. That's why I say that it's incoherent. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's the most succinct description of Gamergate yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, so Gamergate really is that hard to follow then? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's the nature of the beast; a bunch of loosely connected events. Not documenting any of the events would basically make this article an uninformative stub. Not sure how that'd be helpful to anyone. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The issue is that this page has to be 110% right on Gamergate because Gamergaters will point to the most minimal inaccuracies they can and harp on about it. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. This is why I had been filling it full of detail. Because anything that can be interpretted differently will be called out and used as evidence in their favor. Even the most minimal lack of detail, inaccuracy, or lack of a citation is enough to let some asshole get their foot in the door and tear down all of the arguments within. It has to explicitly say that the mob decided Zoe Quinn had sex for reviews and because Eron Gjoni didn't say that himself. It has to show the faults within like Alexander Macris going over the head of The Escapist staff to push a Gamergate agenda and having given money to one of the people he interviewed when Gamergate pilloried Jenn Frank for the time The Guardian didn't publish her claim she donated to Zoe. It has to deal with every nook and cranny possible to peel away the flimsy veneer of "ethics in video game journalism" to show that it's the reactionary backlash against women and in particular Eron trying to use 4chan as his personal army to drive Zoe to suicide.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- And I had been contemplating a "Who's who" section or page to accompany this one because of the mess of people.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, so Gamergate really is that hard to follow then? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's the most succinct description of Gamergate yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- What's not coherent about it is that it drowns itself in the details. If you read through the article from top to bottom, there's such an inverse Gish gallop of events and people thrown at you that your head spins because you get lost. That's why I say that it's incoherent. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
" I am fairly certain you do not have the authority to do that." Any of us does. It's not yet that good. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It was good for the past several months. It was even silver until the last time everyone got their panties in a knot over this page. Why are we suddenly deciding the page isn't bronze status now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The article was bronze status before I ever edited it. When I was editing it it was promoted to silver, but now there's some ridiculous backlash against me and this page that led to its demotion from silver to bronze and now you and JJJS are going "it's not Bronze good" is some real bullshit. I've restored it, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] 2 things I'm wondering
- Why do people pile so much hate on Ryulong for the article being too long and him being a bad writer when its overall structure and much of its content hasn't changed that significantly compared to before Ryulong made a single edit to it?
- How is removing some adjectives and adverbs supposed to meaningfully cut back on the article's size? Is that even a desirable approach in general? I'd prefer a long article that reads normally over a medium-size article made up out of supershort sentences. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The ant joke keeps getting taken out too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- 'Cause it's lame. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I liked it. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- You guys need to decide whether this shit needs to be serious or snarky.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also "Sarkeesian on the Colbert Report set" is the most boring fucking caption ever. Stop taking out the jokes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- This would be a better joke IMHO, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I liked it. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- 'Cause it's lame. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
AgingHippie, what purpose is there to have this page be bland and bereft of any fucking snarkiness? I thought that was the whole purpose of RationalWiki and in fact one of the reasons that gives the page its Bronze rating that you keep removing because you have suddenly decided after 6 months the page is suddenly shit. Either give a reason or leave it in. I'm not going to sit by here having gone through the bureaucracy of the demotion from silver two months ago that suddenly now it's not worthy of "bronze" because three people don't feel like reading it anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, here's your pacifier, put it back in. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not even like it's the "he's somehow unaware a gamergate is an ant" or the "gg GG" line. It's brand new material to replace the old that you had a problem with. Give me a decent reason for all of your actions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The page was bronze since fucking October. I wrote two new sentences. Leave it all in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not even just the bronze thing anymore. There's no reason to undo the caption or the ant sentence. And what the fuck just happened?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your caption is far from funny. If it's not going to be funny, don't try to make it funny. The ant joke works batter pared down to a statement of fact. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's better than "Anita on the Colbert Report set".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Come up with actual snark. What you had there wasn't close. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are referential jokes any better?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not that one, but you're just going to keep crying about it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are referential jokes any better?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Come up with actual snark. What you had there wasn't close. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's better than "Anita on the Colbert Report set".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your caption is far from funny. If it's not going to be funny, don't try to make it funny. The ant joke works batter pared down to a statement of fact. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Guys, plz
Are we done getting our monthly dose of pettiness out of our system yet? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- More like daily dose. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Advocate for the liberation of Willzyx 02:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- This, a daily dose? That can't be healthy. o_O 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's a reference to the Daily Dose meme, aka "Piccolo Dick." Now thank the Doc. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- No idea what the hell is that meme. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
I'm sorry, dear. I'm reading Pokemon horror stories for the internet. 20:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's that pornographic animated gif of Piccolo from Dragonball Z assraping Vegeta. It earned the name "Daily Dose" from 4channers posting it to the board on a daily basis to piss off the mods.
- Well, that's 4chan for you. Glad I never go there. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's that pornographic animated gif of Piccolo from Dragonball Z assraping Vegeta. It earned the name "Daily Dose" from 4channers posting it to the board on a daily basis to piss off the mods.
- No idea what the hell is that meme. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- It's a reference to the Daily Dose meme, aka "Piccolo Dick." Now thank the Doc. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- This, a daily dose? That can't be healthy. o_O 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] By the by
Someone messed up the image in this section. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Linked on /r/kotakuinaction again
Not the article, the talk page. Twice in the last 24 hours. Just in case someone is wondering about the influx of new, peculiar editors here and elsewhere on the wiki.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi KIA. Stop sending us your stooges who repeat shit from last October.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] On harrassment of both sides
|
Is this labelling of the movement as misogynstic based on any good reasoning or just the few instances of harrassment? Gamergate has achieved a lot of its goals, and ratings for many journalistic sites have gone down. It's absurd to say its a guise of pro-ethical games journalism when thousands of emails have been sent to these sites, and the ratings have plummeted because of boycott. Ridiculous. Milo Yiannoupolous or however the hell you say it was told to go and take a bath with a toaster just a few days ago. Everyone gets harrassment, it just appears that Sarkeesian, Quinn and Wu are making a career out of it. This is not at all an objective article- and before you even think to claim balance fallacy, it's obvious that you haven't even looked at #notyourshield properly, just dismissed it as a "token subgroup". PrinceMuqi (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
|