Jimmy Wales on #GamerGate Wikipedia Article Message 4

bubblesort Sep 30th, 2014 (edited) 2,900 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:15:35 -0400
  2. From: Jimmy Wales <REDACTED>
  3. To: The Leader of GamerGate <>
  4. Subject: Re: #GamerGate Article Issues (I'm bubblesort1 on twitter)
  6. On 9/28/14, 5:23 PM, The Leader of GamerGate wrote:
  7. > Thank you for your thoughtful message.
  9. You are welcome.  I actually have no idea why you are now viciously
  10. attacking me on twitter.  Please don't do that.
  12. > You caught me on Goodwin's law... aww, that's so embarrassing!  I was
  13. > tired when I was writing, it won't happen again.  You're right.  I
  14. > should have compared Leigh Alexander talking about #GamerGate to Sarah
  15. > Palin talking about Democrats or Hillary Clinton talking about
  16. > Republicans.  It's just so out there it's offensive to my people.
  18. Yes, that's fine.
  20. > When somebody says they have been harassed online or talks about an
  21. > incident of harassment the first reaction must never be skepticism or
  22. > changing the subject.  Ever.
  24. I agree with you 100%.  And so I don't know what you are angry about or
  25. what the next several paragraphs are even referring to.
  27. > Talking about how your buddies were harassed by GamerGaters
  28. > or demanding evidence or noting that we can't know for certain if they
  29. > were harassed is wrong.
  31. I have not talked about my buddies being harassed by GamerGaters at all.
  32.  Indeed, I don't think any of my buddies have even *heard* of GamerGate.
  35. > It dehumanizes the person in question,  and the
  36. > person you are speaking to will probably start talking about how many
  37. > more victims their side has than yours, which results in comparing body
  38. > counts and escalation (we do have much more victims than you, BTW).
  40. More victims than me?  I'm not on either side of this conflict and so I
  41. don't even think about which side has more victims.  And I agree with
  42. you completely that going down a path of consideration of "counting
  43. victims" is useless and counter-productive in the extreme.
  45. > Then tempers flare and everything gets worse.  Even looking at what you
  46. > wrote about it makes me angry, which is why I'm top posting like this.
  47. > I don't even want to scroll past it.  It puts me in a bad mind set.
  49. Can you tell me what in particular made you angry?
  51. > Why not let people get mad, though?  Truth is more important than
  52. > people's feelings, isn't it?  Well, yes, when the truth is what is being
  53. > talked about.  If you don't have hard, cited evidence to bring to the
  54. > conversation then all you can do is either be silent or show some
  55. > humanity.  If you really want a less toxic environment and want people
  56. > to start taking online harassment more seriously then take it seriously
  57. > yourself.  Besides, what does a little ackgnowledgement and sympathy
  58. > cost you?  Nothing.  I mean, unless somebody is trying to shove it into
  59. > a Wikipedia article without attribution or something, just express some
  60. > sympathy and move on.  At the very least you will throw them off guard,
  61. > LOL.
  63. I agree completely and this is how I conduct myself at all times.  I
  64. don't know what you are talking about.  Let me recite some philosophical
  65. principles that I hold:
  67. 1.  The truth is really important.
  68. 2.  People's feelings are really important.  Usually the two are not in
  69. conflict, but when they are good manners and morals demands of us that
  70. we proceed thoughtfully, slowly, gently, with love in our hearts and
  71. alertness and reason.
  72. 4. Online harassment is a huge massive problem that we should all take
  73. seriously in all cases.
  75. > Now, we all make mistakes with this from time to time.  I'll be the
  76. > first to admit I've done it in the past, I've responded to somebody
  77. > getting harassed with "but look what happened to my friend!"  That's
  78. > wrong, though.
  80. I, too, have made mistakes.  I don't think I'm particularly prone to the
  81. "but look what happened to my friend" fallacy, though.  And certainly I
  82. have not done this today
  84. >  It took a while to realize it, but it was wrong.  It's
  85. > best to take one argument at a time and not act like previous
  86. > conversations set some kind of unchangeable precedent.  On top of that,
  87. > SJWs have been screaming all over the place that you guys want
  88. > harassment taken more seriously, but then you go and do things like
  89. > this.
  91. Am I an 'SJW' now?  That's pretty surprising, I'd have to say.  Why do
  92. you say that?
  94. > It is hypocrisy to only take harassment seriously if it happens
  95. > to people who share the same ideology as you.  I would never minimize
  96. > the incidents where Sarkeesian or Quinn have been harassed.  When my
  97. > friends do it I tell them off, but they never do it because they notice
  98. > when I tear into somebody else for it.  That's really the only reason I
  99. > get nasty over this point.  I need people to pay attention to it.
  101. I agree completely that it is hypocrisy to only take harassment
  102. seriously if it happens to people who share the same ideology as you.
  103. What on earth made you think I would believe otherwise?
  105. > You are a hero of mine, but I would absolutely rip into you if you did
  106. > this in public.
  108. Well, you are ripping into me in private, and I don't even know what
  109. "this" is.
  111. >  I mentioned some doxxings
  112. > on a status and he responded that his friends got doxxed too, without
  113. > acknowledging the doxxings I brought up.  I told him off ruthlessly,
  114. > which caught him by surprise with the sharp shift in tone.  Then we
  115. > talked and he agreed with me that the correct way to handle this kind of
  116. > thing is to show a little humanity.
  118. Yes, I agree with him.  I also think you might have learned a lesson
  119. that going ballistic just because someone didn't respond the way you had
  120. hoped isn't very kind.
  122. > As for your other points... I never considered editing Zoe Quinn's
  123. > post.  I'm just working on one article at a time.
  125. Ok.
  127. >  I also wasn't talking
  128. > about flooding wikipedia with crazy people.  
  130. I didn't think you were.  I was just opining that it is worthwhile to be
  131. careful, as a purely practical matter, about who you invite.  Without
  132. making sure that people aren't going to go ballistic at the drop of the
  133. hat, you run the risk of making things worse.  That's not a moral
  134. judgment, just simple practical advice.
  136. > I just figured if GamerGate
  137. > is a person then the more of us that contribute the better.  I mean, I
  138. > know we aren't a person now, but when I wrote that I thought we were.  I
  139. > didn't understand the categorization.  Thanks for clearing that up for
  140. > me.
  142. Sure.  No problem.  Why are you so angry?
  144.   More eyeballs is always good, right?  At the very least, we might
  145. > recruit a few more wikipedians, which I know you are always looking
  146. > for.  Also, I call them SJWs because when I first heard the term Social
  147. > Justice Warrior it was used as a badge of honor when I was working with
  148. > Occupy Wall St.  I worked outreach between 5 different camps, it was
  149. > quite an experience.  SJWs weren't always bad.  The media just twisted
  150. > them.  No way in hell will I ever call them feminists, because that
  151. > would be inaccurate.
  153. Again I recommend against labeling people as a general rule.  SJWs,
  154. feminists, right wingers, lefties, etc.  It's just not, in my long
  155. experience, particularly helpful.
  157. > I apologise for taking up your time but I have decided not to edit
  158. > Wikipedia.
  160. That's fine.
  162. > I wasn't joking when I said that I feared for my safety but
  163. > I was going to do it anyway because I believe in you. When you cast
  164. > disdain on the transgendered teen who was doxxed and wanted to split
  165. > hairs over what is a 'real doxxing' that's just not reassuring.  To be
  166. > clear, I'm not blaming you for the doxxing, and I don't think you could
  167. > have prevented it or anything like that.  I'm just surprised at your
  168. > complete lack of concern for a Wikipedian who was placed into danger
  169. > over something she wrote on your web site.
  171. Perhaps it would be helpful to me if you could explain what you mean.
  172. What danger?  Have you really looked into the situation?  There is
  173. significant evidence that this is not a case of a transgendered teen at
  174. all, but of a 4chan troll playing up.  EVEN SO, I have said quite
  175. clearly that the doxxing was wrong and creepy.  But we don't have to go
  176. into warrior mode about every single thing on the Internet, particularly
  177. when there is significant evidence that it's a hoax.
  179. Treat with respect, sure.  Oppose the doxxing, sure.  But also
  180. acknowledge with a personal footnote to ourselves that it looks like a
  181. fake case all along.
  183. > Do you actually believe it's
  184. > fair game to connect a person's disconnected digital identities across
  185. > different sites in order to make them look bad like that?  
  187. No, I think it is vicious and disgusting and creepy and I said so.
  189. > That says something about the culture at Wikipedia.
  191. Actually the culture at Wikipedia opposes this sort of thing quite
  192. strongly.  You've misread what I have said.
  194. >  Maybe you have history with
  195. > her or something, I don't know, but even if you do have history with her
  196. > that does not excuse what happened.
  198. I don't have any history at all.
  200. > From what I understand, when that
  201. > article was published and when Zoe linked to it, there was more than
  202. > enough information published for her to be IDed by her classmates, and
  203. > that's all it takes for a hate crime to happen.  
  205. I'm unaware of that.  I also think it is not true.  Can you show me the
  206. details?
  208. > Even if that isn't the
  209. > case, though, it does not matter what she did on Wikipedia, she does not
  210. > deserve to be doxxed.
  212. That's precisely what I said.  I said that it is wrong and creepy.
  214. > Also, don't tell GamerGaters how to deal with non-cis people unless it's
  215. > obvious they are complete idiots about it, because that's just absurd.
  217. I don't even know what this is referring to.  I always recommend that
  218. everyone treat everyone else with respect and kindness.  That's not
  219. particularly amazing advice, but I stand by it.
  221. > I have to be honest, I'm really disappointed in you.  I guess I kind of
  222. > had you on a pedestal or something.  
  224. Ok well given that you've completely misunderstood me, I hope that you
  225. will change your mind now.  I don't think there's anything at all to be
  226. disappointed about.
  228. > There is a chance we will tank the market,
  229. > but more than that we will activate the big money at EA and Ubisoft to
  230. > come in and crush your message, because your message can't hold up in a
  231. > larger arena under that much pressure.
  233. Crush *my* message?  What message is that?
  235. --Jimbo
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand