Talk:Timeline of Gamergate/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)(back) has taken down archived pages of 8chan (maybe)[edit]

Just as a note to everyone: As the creator of the original version of this timeline, I have heavily relied on to keep records on GG's activity on 8chan and other ephemeral online sources (and the RW version of the timeline still contains many of these links). In a blogpost on March 9th, said that they would take down all 8chan pages due to the abundance of child pornography on the site.

By now (March 10th) they seem to have (partly?) dropped that decision. A superficial examination has - thus far - shown that only one link to an archived 8chan thread is currently unavailable.

Lists like the timeline are always going to be affected by link rot over time and I don't know how RW has dealt with them in the past. Personally, I think switching to other methods/sites to archive 8chan pages is useful. Squirrelrampage (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at those.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 15:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks like is the best option moving forward. Squirrelrampage (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Mundane Matt SWATting[edit]

I get the feeling there will be more wikiblood spilt over this for whatever inane reasons, so I'll try to nip this in the bud by actually discussing it on the Talk page. I watched the video in question, TDA was correct that Mundane Matt never blamed "SJWs" in it as whoever wrote the section erroneously said, and TDA was correct that Matt was suspecting, but not naming, a specific individual as the likely culprit. In the news story, Matt told them he suspected it could have been caused by a Twitter argument he had earlier that day, but then again he said he is a "giant target" (no fat shaming please). In addition, TDA: you were removing the YouTube link completely instead of rewriting the section to be factual. Others: Don't edit war if you're not going to check the sources (but I can't blame you for not wanting to watch the video). Lightning Dust (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Glorious bastion of anti-SJW rationality /r/wikiinaction has noticed. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 10:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Escapist loses its office[edit]

I'm getting some heavily filtered noise about this, but has anybody come across a reliable article about The Escapist shutting down it's office to be a decentralized organization? (So like a bunch of d00ds working from home as opposed to going into a journalistic office every day.) Zero (talk - contributions) 18:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote poll[edit]

See Talk:Gamergate#Poll:_link-filled_hatnotes.3F - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Owens-Dewey entry[edit]

I have checked the blog post by David Futrelle and, despite being highly partisan and one-sided, it does not seem to claim at any point that Dewey "uncovered a lie" by Owens. This may be conflating Owens accusing Dewey of lying or Futrelle doubting her statements, though her statements seemed clear enough to me, but I do not see the blog post make the actual claim being made in the entry. Should this claim of Dewey uncovering a lie be provided in some other source then could someone please provide it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course Futrelle quoting Owens' blog and pointing out the inconsistencies in her own story is "highly partisan and one-sided", much as reality has a liberal bias.
From the Mammoth piece: "Owens, you recall, told Dewey that she didn’t want to name names because “anyone who had been even remotely associated with us had received some form of unwarranted contact.” " This claim, when Dewey checked it out, turned out to be complete bullshit.
The reason I just revert your edits is because you are literally an incompetent reader who goes into high dudgeon about his own lack of comprehension, and you have yet to have a point. The details, fully cited, are set out in the Mammoth piece in a manner that any reasonable human could read and understand that Owens was caught out spraying obfuscatory bullshit in all directions. You failed to understand a fully-cited writeup, and come here demanding someone provide one for you that will be more to your liking. Literally, the answer to your question is "read the Mammoth article and follow the links." You utterly failed to understand what you were reading and somehow this is everyone else's problem - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Like a third of the blog post was spent engaging in ad hominem attacks against people who had at best tangential relevance to what Owens was talking about, so that is certainly what I would consider highly partisan. The part you single out is Futrelle's assessment and even that is misguided. He takes that line to suggest what Dewey apparently told others is just what Owens told her, but that is not accurate. She stated she would not tell Dewey who she was working with because anyone even remotely associated with them received unwarranted contact. It is definitely the opposite of what she said to claim Owens told Dewey that the Clementi foundation were consultants and there is a big difference between "unwarranted contact" and hate mail. Nowhere in that post is Dewey cited anywhere claiming to have caught her in a lie nor is there clear evidence Owens lied. You can insult me all you like, but the rational thing to do is cite evidence directly supporting one's position, especially when that position is reasonably questioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You could claim that she was too delusional for it to constitute a "lie" I suppose, but for any reasonable human the answer is fully cited in the Mammoth piece and you're bloviating - David Gerard (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Were it so evident you wouldn't have any trouble proving it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
He's not having trouble, you're just sticking your fingers in your ears. (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • From Owens: "I declined to answer this point entirely, and I told her explicitly that the reason was that I did not want to drag anymore unrelated third parties into this mess, as anyone who had been even remotely associated with us had received some form of unwarranted contact." [1]
  • From Owens: "Most notably, we are proud partners and friends of the Tyler Clementi Foundation and their Day1 campaign.We encourage you all to check out their work and website. As well as a list of their organization's initiatives, which align fully with our own." [2]
Owens claims that the Tyler Clementi Foundation was one of the app's partners, and then claims that everyone who had associated with the app (i.e. TCF) had been harassed. Dewey investigated, this assertion turned out not to be true. The most charitable interpretation was that Owens was being irresponsibly hyperbolic and dishonestly obstructing attempts to clarify her claims. The least charitable is that she completely made up that TCF had partnered with her on the app, and that they had received any harassment.
All of this is clearly stated in the Mammoth article. (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I realize IP-san is maybe not going to respond as it has been a while, but it should again be noted that there is a distinction between "hate mail", "harassment", and "unwarranted contact" that keeps getting lost here. Maybe this is the real problem with this page. Everyone just reads into the sources what they want to get out of them and then treats that as truth, rather than saying what is actually stated in the sources. Where Futrelle is also mistaken is in why Owens said that was exactly the opposite of what she said. Owens says she expressly declined to identify any groups associated with her project and apparently the TCF was told or led to believe that Owens had identified them specifically to say they had received "tons of hate mail" for their association with her project. There is a clear difference between what Owens says she told Dewey and what Dewey apparently told TCF. Owens does not suggest that her conversation with Dewey talked about hate mail or harassment, but only unwarranted contact, and she says she never identified specific groups to Dewey. If Dewey did indeed suggest or intimate to TCF that Owens had identified them and said they were receiving tons of hate mail when Owens had done neither, then Owens has a legitimate complaint with Dewey's conduct and could not in any way be said to have been "caught in a lie" as this page claims.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sandflapjack's changes[edit]

OK, now we discuss this. Why is it necessary to change to links when the primary links they are referring to are viable? And why is TDA no longer relevant when he was previously? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why was he ever relevant in the first place Sandflapjack (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The reason why he is relevant is because he is part of the whole GamerGate drama/morass, which involves many people. There are also his frequent attempts to edit and rewrite things here his way - where he came after being ousted from W - which can be seen both on this page (I recommend searching) and in the archives (here, here, here, and here). --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
TDA is not mentioned at all on the page before or after the sudden event of his ban on Wikipedia. He is obviously not at all relevant to understanding anything about Gamergate as a whole. And his exile to RationalWiki isn't noteworthy either. You don't see a billion references to Ryulong on this page, do you? Who cares TDA got banned. From all his GG apologism on RationalWiki he probably deserved it. Sandflapjack (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
He was a major GG figure on W. As this is a timeline overview of all events related to it, I say it's relevant.
Matter of fact, Ryulong's history SHOULD be added. Major figure also. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The individual people on Wikipedia don't matter to the entirety of Gamergate. And adding Ryulong to this page is fucking stupid like who the fuck cares about ryulong honestly. Ryulong is to RW as anita sarkessian is to gators. Its getting annoying seeying him thrown around, even in a coop that has nothing to do with him. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. TDA is irrelevant to the larger story, and even if he were relevant, the Breitbart interview is self-aggrandising BS - David Gerard (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys. I admit I don't see how my interview with Breitbart was self-aggrandising except that it represented only my side of the issue, which is kind of the point of an interview. Only time I say anything that might be considered praise is when I said I have a tendency to see all sides and I feel that is just a true statement about myself rather than praise. Some would say seeing all sides is not a desirable trait as I have been told on more than one occasion to take a side and stick to it. As far as my inclusion in your little timeline, I personally don't mind being mentioned as long as the info is accurate. Granted, I doubt any of you care about how this makes me feel in the first place, but if any of you did then you don't have to worry. When it comes to relevance, I suppose that is all about how you imagine it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Like I said on my user talk page, all of the other links on this page are links. So I fixed that for the two that weren't. is alt-right outrage clickbait trash that we shouldn't link to directly Sandflapjack (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
A vote for archiving their links. Hipocrite (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
As for the second, If all of the other links on this page are links, I would say those should be changed back. It doesn't matter if Breitbart is a tabloid; if it's referring to a primary article, we should link to it directly. There's no reason why NOT to. If I find a primary source somewhere, I link to it.
Is there a reason ASIDE from "We don't like Breitbart"? Because I'm happy to listen. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
History of deceptive editing [3]. Hipocrite (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a good reason. OK, that works for the Breitbart archiving. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest in the case of evidence-burners that we link the original and link (archive) afterwards - links are mystery-meat - David Gerard (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Paper Mario bit[edit]

It's so ridiculous biased that makes me burst into a fit of laughter every single time. Unregistered (talk) 11:22. 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for Silver[edit]

We have an insane and exhaustive timeline here. Silver anyone? Zero (talk - contributions) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I saport Silvar. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
+1. Bits could do with a rewrite, but e.g. I did August 2014 once and it was exhausting ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I presume since a Silver rating indicates an article is "almost fully referenced" that means claims have to be backed by references. Should that be the case then this page isn't anywhere near that level.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The article itself is fully referenced. The problem is, it doesn't use ref tags to provide said references, instead linking out in the actual article text. This should likely be changed to refs by someone with way too much time on their hands. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
So does "fully referenced" not mean "all claims are supported by the cited references"? I get that RationalWiki allows some opinionated editorializing, but there is a difference between that and stating as fact things that are false or unsupported. Hard to see the point of making references contingent on a quality rating if the references don't have to support factual claims made on the page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam: Kindly refrain from sea lioning further.
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
That's nice, but it doesn't address whether this page should get a higher rating when so many claims are not supported by the cited sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
You have shown repeatedly that you are literally unable to understand what sources say (per tendentious discussions on Talk:Gamergate passim). This is not a problem for anyone else - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am quite aware that many members of this site don't care about factual accuracy as is evident by how many times I have had to correct entries on this page to stiff resistance from you and others. You repeated your attacks on my intelligence previously in a discussion above, but you never did prove the claims made in that entry were verified by the hyper-partisan source being cited for the claims. Unfortunately, there are a lot of claims like that on this page where what is said in the sources doesn't match up. Not a good representation of a rational community's input as would be suggested by a higher quality rating.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna run up a minor red flag for lack of visual aids. Well enough formatted that "wall-of-text" doesn't apply, but I could call it a palisade-of-words. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a pile of minutiae which no one will care about in five years time... if anyone cares about it now. Sure, GamerGate is worthy of some attention, but to cover it in such elaborate detail I think gives it more attention than it actually deserves. (((Zack Martin))) 07:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
One minute, it's "not a big enough deal" to cover GG so closely, and we're anal retentives for doing so. The next minute, we're shills for not covering it closely enough. "Where are the refs?!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Your response seems to presume I'm some sort of supporter of GamerGate; I'm not. GamerGate is a stupid waste of time. Their evidence for alleged "ethical problems" in gaming journalism was flimsy–no, "flimsy" is too kind, "concocted out of thin air" would be more accurate; but, to be honest, even if they were right and there really are ethical problems in gaming journalism–who cares? Even if gaming journalism was as corrupt as corrupt could be, there are numerous far more pressing ethical problems in the world to worry about. I'm more worried about the possibility that journalism about serious topics such as war and politics might be corrupt, than I am about corruption of "gaming journalism". 90% of that sort of "journalism" is just regurgitating press releases, and is never going to amount to anything, and in the grand scheme of things is totally irrelevant. (((Zack Martin))) 09:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. A few on-point images scattered about every few months would help. Maybe an image of Tim around the part where he does the sockpuppet joke.
Images spice up every wall of text.
Images spice up everything. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 08:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

First month without updates[edit]

Looks like we reached a notable milestone in that October 2016 was the first month with no entries on the timeline. I think it's safe to say that it (as in the movement by itself) is finally over. --Paul S (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No, not over, just emerged from its hideous cocoon of pretending to care about video games to become the disgusting butterfly of the alt-right. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Kinda what I meant. GG by itself no longer has any momentum. The followers have all assimilated into the anti-social justice, alt-right blob. --Paul S (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not valid anymore given December updates, but I would say the problem is more that RationalWiki users are not following GamerGate as obsessively as previously. A number of big events related to GamerGate happened in September, but only one thing is mentioned and there are some significant developments in October at least. Perhaps part of the problem is that no events occurred that would be conducive to an anti-GamerGate narrative and the community here is generally biased against GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)