Jimmy Wales on #GamerGate Wikipedia Article Message 3

bubblesort Sep 30th, 2014 (edited) 2,938 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:23:37 -0400
  2. From: The Leader of GamerGate <>
  3. To: Jimmy Wales <REDACTED>
  4. Subject: Re: #GamerGate Article Issues (I'm bubblesort1 on twitter)
  6. Thank you for your thoughtful message.
  8. You caught me on Goodwin's law... aww, that's so embarrassing!  I was
  9. tired when I was writing, it won't happen again.  You're right.  I
  10. should have compared Leigh Alexander talking about #GamerGate to Sarah
  11. Palin talking about Democrats or Hillary Clinton talking about
  12. Republicans.  It's just so out there it's offensive to my people.
  14. Of course I'll keep this private, not just because you assumed it would
  15. be but because I feel like being nice to you.  If we were in public this
  16. message would be full of vitriol.  Let me explain why.
  18. When somebody says they have been harassed online or talks about an
  19. incident of harassment the first reaction must never be skepticism or
  20. changing the subject.  Ever.  Unless you have specific knowledge of the
  21. event, like the Emma Watson case, for example, you show a little
  22. sympathy.  Talking about how your buddies were harassed by GamerGaters
  23. or demanding evidence or noting that we can't know for certain if they
  24. were harassed is wrong.  It dehumanizes the person in question,  and the
  25. person you are speaking to will probably start talking about how many
  26. more victims their side has than yours, which results in comparing body
  27. counts and escalation (we do have much more victims than you, BTW).  
  28. Then tempers flare and everything gets worse.  Even looking at what you
  29. wrote about it makes me angry, which is why I'm top posting like this.  
  30. I don't even want to scroll past it.  It puts me in a bad mind set.
  32. Why not let people get mad, though?  Truth is more important than
  33. people's feelings, isn't it?  Well, yes, when the truth is what is being
  34. talked about.  If you don't have hard, cited evidence to bring to the
  35. conversation then all you can do is either be silent or show some
  36. humanity.  If you really want a less toxic environment and want people
  37. to start taking online harassment more seriously then take it seriously
  38. yourself.  Besides, what does a little ackgnowledgement and sympathy
  39. cost you?  Nothing.  I mean, unless somebody is trying to shove it into
  40. a Wikipedia article without attribution or something, just express some
  41. sympathy and move on.  At the very least you will throw them off guard, LOL.
  43. Now, we all make mistakes with this from time to time.  I'll be the
  44. first to admit I've done it in the past, I've responded to somebody
  45. getting harassed with "but look what happened to my friend!"  That's
  46. wrong, though.  It took a while to realize it, but it was wrong.  It's
  47. best to take one argument at a time and not act like previous
  48. conversations set some kind of unchangeable precedent.  On top of that,
  49. SJWs have been screaming all over the place that you guys want
  50. harassment taken more seriously, but then you go and do things like
  51. this.  It is hypocrisy to only take harassment seriously if it happens
  52. to people who share the same ideology as you.  I would never minimize
  53. the incidents where Sarkeesian or Quinn have been harassed.  When my
  54. friends do it I tell them off, but they never do it because they notice
  55. when I tear into somebody else for it.  That's really the only reason I
  56. get nasty over this point.  I need people to pay attention to it.
  58. You are a hero of mine, but I would absolutely rip into you if you did
  59. this in public.  I did it just the other day when I was talking to Raph
  60. Koster on my FB wall (not trying to name drop, I know him from
  61. SecondLife, I'm no big shot).  Koster is another hero of mine.  He made
  62. Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies and wrote A Theory of Fun.  Games
  63. wouldn't be what they are today without him.  I mentioned some doxxings
  64. on a status and he responded that his friends got doxxed too, without
  65. acknowledging the doxxings I brought up.  I told him off ruthlessly,
  66. which caught him by surprise with the sharp shift in tone.  Then we
  67. talked and he agreed with me that the correct way to handle this kind of
  68. thing is to show a little humanity.  All of my FB friends learned from
  69. that post.  The right thing to do about your friends is to make a
  70. seperate post if you want to talk about your friends who were hit.  Let
  71. the other side have a little compassion when they are hurt.  That's what
  72. I do for SJWs.  If a GamerGater doesn't show compassion feel free to
  73. nail them on it.  The more people push this message the better.  It only
  74. works if you sincerely do your best to set the example, though.
  76. As for your other points... I never considered editing Zoe Quinn's
  77. post.  I'm just working on one article at a time.  I also wasn't talking
  78. about flooding wikipedia with crazy people.  I just figured if GamerGate
  79. is a person then the more of us that contribute the better.  I mean, I
  80. know we aren't a person now, but when I wrote that I thought we were.  I
  81. didn't understand the categorization.  Thanks for clearing that up for
  82. me.  More eyeballs is always good, right?  At the very least, we might
  83. recruit a few more wikipedians, which I know you are always looking
  84. for.  Also, I call them SJWs because when I first heard the term Social
  85. Justice Warrior it was used as a badge of honor when I was working with
  86. Occupy Wall St.  I worked outreach between 5 different camps, it was
  87. quite an experience.  SJWs weren't always bad.  The media just twisted
  88. them.  No way in hell will I ever call them feminists, because that
  89. would be inaccurate.
  91. I apologise for taking up your time but I have decided not to edit
  92. Wikipedia.  I wasn't joking when I said that I feared for my safety but
  93. I was going to do it anyway because I believe in you. When you cast
  94. disdain on the transgendered teen who was doxxed and wanted to split
  95. hairs over what is a 'real doxxing' that's just not reassuring.  To be
  96. clear, I'm not blaming you for the doxxing, and I don't think you could
  97. have prevented it or anything like that.  I'm just surprised at your
  98. complete lack of concern for a Wikipedian who was placed into danger
  99. over something she wrote on your web site.  Do you actually believe it's
  100. fair game to connect a person's disconnected digital identities across
  101. different sites in order to make them look bad like that?  That says
  102. something about the culture at Wikipedia.  Maybe you have history with
  103. her or something, I don't know, but even if you do have history with her
  104. that does not excuse what happened.  From what I understand, when that
  105. article was published and when Zoe linked to it, there was more than
  106. enough information published for her to be IDed by her classmates, and
  107. that's all it takes for a hate crime to happen.  Even if that isn't the
  108. case, though, it does not matter what she did on Wikipedia, she does not
  109. deserve to be doxxed. Having no concern at all for her is unacceptable
  110. to me.  I won't edit your wiki and I will warn others that they might
  111. want to consider leaving it alone as well (don't worry, I won't tell
  112. them what you said, I'll make up a new argument).
  114. Also, don't tell GamerGaters how to deal with non-cis people unless it's
  115. obvious they are complete idiots about it, because that's just absurd.  
  116. All the non-cis devs are on our side of the fence, since Zoe Quinn and
  117. other SJWs went after places like the Women in Gaming project because of
  118. their twisted view of what transgendered rights should be, and they have
  119. always went out of their way to specifically harass and forcibly out
  120. trans people. SJWs are known TERFs.  If you want to know how to treat
  121. non-cis people you need to follow GamerGate's example and treat them
  122. like human beings.  That teen was a she.  Calling her a he is insulting
  123. to all civilized people.  You might as well drop an N-bomb.
  125. I'll stick to Twitter and 8chan (as long as I can stomach it) and spend
  126. my time writing messages to gaming advertisers rather than on
  127. Wikipedia.  Your article will stay extreme, which is good for my cause.  
  128. I mean, an unbiased article based on facts would be better, but barring
  129. that an extreme article that everybody can see is extreme is fine.  It
  130. hurts your credibility and boosts ours. If you want it fixed then fix it
  131. yourself.
  133. I have to be honest, I'm really disappointed in you.  I guess I kind of
  134. had you on a pedestal or something.  I stuck up for you to luddite
  135. professors (I think I lost a letter grade for that once) and I edited
  136. articles for you... not that I'm a prolific Wikipedian, but I care about
  137. the project.  That doesn't mean you owe me anything, just... I was kind
  138. of hoping you were more human or something.  You probably get too much
  139. hate mail.  Trust me, reading that crap will make you callous.
  141. One last thing, though... I'm kind of trying to telegraph this to your
  142. side because I want to find a way to stop the conflict before it really
  143. goes too far.  The end game for this is to signal boost SJWs into the
  144. mainstream around black Friday in order to scare parents into not buying
  145. video games for their kids.  There is a chance we will tank the market,
  146. but more than that we will activate the big money at EA and Ubisoft to
  147. come in and crush your message, because your message can't hold up in a
  148. larger arena under that much pressure.  I don't want to do that.  Here's
  149. my problem with the plan... first, I don't like advertiser influence,
  150. and we will be increasing their influence if we do this.  Second, I
  151. don't think any sane person actually wants to get rid of feminism in the
  152. games culture.  We need feminists because we do have problems.  We just
  153. don't need to be disenfranchised over it. Thirdly, if you look at the
  154. financials, the AAA industry is not well.  I think the damage could be
  155. more extensive than we anticipate.  Nobody wants developers and good
  156. journalists to get more pink slips.  At the same time, we are
  157. disenfranchised and backed into a corner (I don't actually care if you
  158. believe me when I tell you I was chased to Twitter by an angry mob,
  159. because it's the truth, I really can't stand twitter).
  161. Anyway, if you can think of anything to help bring us all back together
  162. now would be a great time to try it.  I've been scratching my head over
  163. this for a while but can't come up with anything, so I'm just gonna go
  164. with this Black Friday plan unless something big changes.
  166. Smooth sailing!
  167. ~The Leader of GamerGate
  169. P.S. - Here is a gamergate timeline I am working on.  It's not done yet,
  170. but what is on it is reliable and fully cited.
  174. On 9/28/2014 12:10 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
  175. > And now that you've found my public email address I'm responding from my
  176. > private one.  This one is slightly better but still gets swamped. :-)
  177. >
  178. > I'd like to ask that this conversation be kept private, not because it
  179. > is particularly secret in any way but because I need to write casually
  180. > and simply and if I were writing for public consumption.
  181. >
  182. > Pastebin stuck a bunch of numbers into your writing so the formatting
  183. > below is weird.  I'll just ignore that. :)
  184. >
  185. >
  186. >>   To be honest, I am not just scared of loosing my
  187. >>      account.  I am afraid of being doxxed and threatened in real life.
  188. >>       That is what SJWs did to a transgendered teen wikipedia editor just
  189. >>      weeks ago.  The following link is redacted for obvious reasons.  The
  190. >>      article on Wikipediocracy still exists, but it has been edited since
  191. >>      this screen shot has been taken.
  192. >>   6.
  193. >>      
  194. >>   7.
  195. >>
  196. > Some things need to be said about this:
  197. >
  198. > First, Wikipediocracy is an attack site against Wikipedia, generally
  199. > hated by the Wikipedia community.  They are, like many attack groups,
  200. > wildly inconsistent.  One day they'll criticize us because someone's
  201. > personal information got posted and get into a lather that we don't do
  202. > enough to protect people.  The next day, they're doxxing someone.
  203. >
  204. > Second, it is pretty clear to anyone who has looked at all the evidence
  205. > that the user in question is not at Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia.
  206. >   Doxxing to a home address (or even city) is rude and borderline creepy
  207. > but noting that he's active on the Internet in highly misogynist places
  208. > is a perfectly valid observation.  Questions that have been raised as to
  209. > whether he's really transgendered (a claim it has been said was only
  210. > made at Wikipedia and seemingly quite contrary to his online persona
  211. > otherwise) give me some pause as well, but are not really particularly
  212. > important.
  213. >
  214. > (That last point is difficult to make with delicacy.  It is my personal
  215. > belief that, for the most part, we should simply accept people's claims
  216. > about their personal identity without question.  It's normally quite
  217. > rude to claim that someone isn't *really* transgendered or whatever.
  218. > But it's a sticky issue because it's also a huge icky disgusting thing
  219. > if someone pretends to be transgendered and then behaves in awful ways
  220. > as part of a 4chan-style trolling campaign.  So, let's leave it aside
  221. > for the most part but put a small footnote in our minds to be wary.)
  222. >
  223. > People who keep posting his topic ban as a "gotcha" against Wikipedia do
  224. > not have my sympathy.  He's exactly the kind of person we should topic ban.
  225. >
  226. > Third, unless the redacted bits contained much more specific information
  227. > than it looks, the doxxing was rude and borderline creepy but not
  228. > actually a full blown DOXXING with home address, social security
  229. > numbers, work phone numbers, and so on.  It's basically just a bit of
  230. > googling and noting publicly available information.
  231. >
  232. >
  233. >>   9.
  234. >>      Zoe Quinn linked to this article on her twitter, to spread the
  235. >>      doxxing information in order to put this transgendered teen in as
  236. >>      much physical danger as possible.
  237. >> 10.
  238. >>      
  239. >> 11.
  240. >>      Here are more details on this, with more links:
  241. >>
  242. > That person X took action Y on the Internet does not imply that it
  243. > belongs in their biography nor in an article about the wider incidents
  244. > that give it context.  I say this not to argue that it should NOT be
  245. > included but to give you guidance on the ONLY way to get it included if
  246. > you think it should be.  And that is: you need high quality third party
  247. > reliable sources who talk about it as being relevant to the story.
  248. >
  249. > Now, having said that, that's just editing advice.  But let me go a step
  250. > further and argue why I think it should NOT be included and call your
  251. > attention to some pretty concerning bias in your thinking.  I ask you to
  252. > really focus on this next paragraph and don't respond immediately but
  253. > just to sit with it.  Have lunch on it, dinner on it.
  254. >
  255. > Your item 9 above contains two separate claims.  First, that Zoe Quinn
  256. > linked to this article on her twitter.  Second, it contains a fairly
  257. > spectacular and evidence-free personal attack on her by attributing to
  258. > her motives that are not provable and not likely to be true.
  259. >
  260. > "to spread the doxxing information in order to put this transgendered
  261. > teen in as much physical danger as possible."
  262. >
  263. > I don't know of any evidence in any of Zoe Quinn's biography that would
  264. > even begin to suggest that she would want to place anyone in "as much
  265. > physical danger as possible".  Indeed, it seems very unlikely.
  266. >
  267. > If you ask me what is the most likely is that she clicked on the
  268. > Wikipediocracy link, read the turgid and boring prose just long enough
  269. > to see that it was generally favorable to herself, and posted the link
  270. > without finishing it or noticing the doxxing.
  271. >
  272. > Because it is not a full blown doxxing, there is virtually no chance
  273. > that anyone was put into any physical danger by the article, as rude and
  274. > creepy as it is.
  275. >
  276. > Ok last point on this and this is the part that I want you to really sit
  277. > with: If you come to this with a mindset that "OMG SHE TRIED TO GET HIM
  278. > HURT" then clearly that would strike you as something of great
  279. > relevance.  But if you step back and look at the facts, all she did was
  280. > tweet a link to a bad article.  That's not really of major biographical
  281. > interest.
  282. >
  283. >> 13.
  284. >>      That is what we are dealing with.  We get doxxed and physically
  285. >>      threatened constantly, especially the transgendered among us.  I
  286. >>      could ask what Wikipedia does about these kinds of issues, but I'm
  287. >>      not sure what you can do.  Wikipediocracy is not part of Wikipedia.
  288. > That's for damn sure.
  289. >
  290. >> 15.
  291. >>      So I am scared for my safety but I'm going to try to make things
  292. >>      better anyway, because I believe in you, Jimmy.  You are the
  293. >>      greatest educator of our generation.  The world would be much more
  294. >>      stupid without your work, so when you tell me that Wikipedia is safe
  295. >>      and that I should help fix things I'm going to listen to you.  If I
  296. >>      get doxxed then I'm out.  I won't risk my health and well being for
  297. >>      Wikipedia.  If it comes to that then the Wikipedia Foundation will
  298. >>      have to do something about the toxic environment before I'll come
  299. >>      back.  Unless I get doxxed and/or threateaned, though, I'm going to
  300. >>      give you the benefit of the doubt, because you deserve it.
  301. > In terms of assessing your personal risk, I can't really help you.
  302. > Certainly the Wikipedians are quite firm against that kind of behavior
  303. > and so I don't see what the risk is considering that you are very vocal
  304. > on twitter.  If someone wants to go after you, it seems they already
  305. > could, and if you come to Wikipedia and make thoughtful arguments then
  306. > the chances of trouble seem quite small.  But yes, you should make that
  307. > determination for yourself.
  308. >
  309. >> 17.
  310. >>      If any of my #gamergate friends are reading this:  I urge you to
  311. >>      also give Jimmy Wales the benefit of the doubt and get involved as
  312. >>      well.  We can't go on attacking everybody who gets their news about
  313. >>      the world from the New York Post and Gamasutra.  It's not their
  314. >>      fault they don't know any better.  We have to give more people the
  315. >>      chance to learn the truth.  We need more voices and more compassion,
  316. >>      even when SJWs and the press attack us from every side with violence
  317. >>      and smear campaigns, dehumanizing us to deny us compassion, we need
  318. >>      to stand proud and tell the truth.
  319. > I would recommend in your interactions with the outside world that you
  320. > drop the term "SJWs".  It gives off a militant and combative "us versus
  321. > them" vibe that causes people to rightly doubt the objectivity of what
  322. > you are saying.  I think it does you a major disservice in terms of
  323. > trying to get the message out to the wider world.  (New York Times, etc.)
  324. >
  325. > There is a view, not correct but not entirely without foundation, that
  326. > there is a massive huge community of virulently reactionary dimwits who
  327. > want games with hapless damsels with cartoon-hot bodies and all the
  328. > rest, who get upset with any criticism or commentary about the problems
  329. > with that and lash out at "feminazis", "SJWs", etc.  You and I both know
  330. > that this is not the majority of the gaming world by a long shot, but it
  331. > is a group that absolutely does exist and have been doing a lot of harm
  332. > to the reputation of games and the gaming industry and the gaming community.
  333. >
  334. > It may be a convenient shorthand for internal discussions, but even
  335. > there I think it's dangerous.  Labeling people makes it harder to make
  336. > distinctions among them.  We see this in the unfortunately dismal state
  337. > of political discourse in the US all the time.  "liberal" and
  338. > "conservative" are thrown out as epithets in a way that completely
  339. > blinds people to real policy issues.  It becomes a... video game where
  340. > you shoot the bad guys and save the good guys.  Not helpful to real
  341. > progress in society.
  342. >
  343. > Here's a great example from recent times.  Congressman Cory Gardner is
  344. > running for Senate in Colorado as a Republican.  I don't support or
  345. > oppose him.  I'm just observing the discourse.
  346. >
  347. > The Democrats trotted out the usual playbook that he's a crazed right
  348. > winger who wants to ban birth control.  Problem is, he's in favor of
  349. > wide access to contraception and even proposes that the birth control
  350. > pill be made available without a prescription.
  351. >
  352. > I'm sure there's plenty to love or hate about the guy but the point is
  353. > the *label* of "right wing Republican" caused the debate to deteriorate
  354. > into nonsense.
  355. >
  356. > Similarly, labeling people as "SJWs" is not conducive to serious respect
  357. > and consideration of a variety of viewpoints of people who have varying
  358. > degrees of concern and criticism of gaming culture.
  359. >
  360. > (I've removed the long and mostly speculative discussion of who fucked
  361. > who and when because I don't think the blow by blow is relevant -
  362. > particularly not when pieced together from various blog posts - again,
  363. > high quality reliable third party sources are key.)
  364. >
  365. >>      These appearances of impropriety exist.  No neutral person can claim
  366. >>      otherwise.
  367. > I think that's the main valid point in what you are saying but the point
  368. > and should be made without sounding like a personal digging into some
  369. > woman's sex life.  Let me explain further.
  370. >
  371. > The problems with corruption in the magazine industry are rampant.  Let
  372. > me give a completely separate example so as to make this less emotional.
  373. >
  374. > Boats.
  375. >
  376. > I like boats.  I have a small family speedboat (19 footer) and I'm
  377. > fortunate in my life to know a lot of super wealthy people and sometimes
  378. > get invited to visit on really big boats.  So I read boat magazines.
  379. > Mainly I read ones relevant to me, i.e. about normal family boats -
  380. > maybe I'll move up to a 24 footer next year!)
  381. >
  382. > But the one thing I know for sure is that when I'm reading boat
  383. > magazines I'm not reading independent hard hitting journalism with
  384. > quality reviews.  I'm reading advertiser-supported industry-friendly
  385. > borderline-pr puffery.  Part of that is just natural: the people who go
  386. > into journalism at boat magazines love boats too!  So they are naturally
  387. > positive.  But part of that is just that the whole industry is "in bed"
  388. > together.
  389. >
  390. > I mean that in every way.  Loaner boats.  Weekend jaunts.  They know
  391. > each other - attend the same boat shows, build relationships.  It's
  392. > party unavoidable but partly it's a fertile ground for corruption.
  393. >
  394. > That's true of a lot of "subculture" journalism.
  395. >
  396. > NOW.  Let's switch back to gaming.  There's a massive problem here as
  397. > well.  But the problem is not with some relatively unimportant indy game
  398. > developer and who she slept with, the problem is with massive issues
  399. > with major game magazines being industry-compromised.
  400. >
  401. > So the problem as I see it is that lots of people in #gamergate claim to
  402. > be about that corruption bit, but instead are massively obsessed with
  403. > Zoe Quinn's sex life.
  404. >
  405. > So, is there an appearance of impropriety?  Sure and the details don't
  406. > matter.  An ex boyfriend with little honor decided to go public in a
  407. > vicious way about a sad breakup and a firestorm ensued.  But it isn't
  408. > really IMPORTANT in the way that massive corruption in the magazine
  409. > industry is.
  410. >
  411. >
  412. >  From here on I'm going to try to stick to specific editing advice and
  413. > advice about talking to the community.  I will sound like a broken
  414. > record: it's all about sources, sources, sources.  Your analysis or mine
  415. > may be interesting to us, but not relevant for Wikipedia.
  416. >
  417. >
  418. >>      First of all, the title of the article is misleading.  Gamergate is
  419. >>      not a controversy.  To be perfectly objective, GamerGate is a
  420. >>      hashtag.
  421. > What do reliable sources call it?  To me it is both a controversy and a
  422. > hashtag.  And in a way, it's a movement.  One of the difficulties is
  423. > that there is really no way to say "Supporters of GamerGate believe..."
  424. > because there is no central authority or manifesto that people sign up to.
  425. >
  426. >>   The #GamerGate movement has actually undergone a few
  427. >>      different names, informally.  Before #GamerGate it was Burgers and
  428. >>      Fries.  Before that it was some operation to save TFYC (the specific
  429. >>      name of which slips my mind at the moment).  Before that it was
  430. >>      something involving WizardChan or CYChan or Tumblr, the details of
  431. >>      which are difficult to source.  You could accurately refer to
  432. >>      GamerGate as a movement, or one name for a movement, but it is
  433. >>      absolutely not a controversy.
  434. > When hundreds of people are screaming at each other all over the
  435. > internet, yeah, it's a controversy.
  436. >
  437. > Here's a google news link:
  438. >
  439. >
  440. > Virtually every source - including those with NO ties to the
  441. > publications involve in the controversy - calls it a controversy.
  442. >
  443. > I recommend not trying to change the name of the article.
  444. >
  445. >>      Second of all, the article says that GamerGate is about, "a
  446. >>      controversy in video game culture concerning ingrained[1] issues of
  447. >>      sexism and misogyny in the gamer community and journalistic ethics
  448. >>      in the online gaming press, particularly conflicts of interest
  449. >>      between video game journalists and developers."
  450. >> 46.
  451. >>      
  452. >> 47.
  453. >>      That is incorrect and oversimplifying things a lot.  It deliberately
  454. >>      skews towards the SJW perspective.  GamerGate is a movement that
  455. >>      relates directly to a dozen different things, and the situations we
  456. >>      are addressing change constantly.  As more problems pop up we do our
  457. >>      best to handle them.  We are concerned about sexism and about
  458. >>      censorship.  I don't have numbers on this, but it is my impression
  459. >>      that most of us have been censored for trying to discuss things like
  460. >>      Feminist Frequency honestly.  On most forums, SJWs won't allow us to
  461. >>      disagree with Sarkeesian's assertions, no matter how outlandish they
  462. >>      might be.  For example, she says that female corpses are sexy but
  463. >>      male corpses are not.  She says that games shape our reality and
  464. >>      spread misogyny (the statistical correlation for that goes in the
  465. >>      opposite direction Sarkeesian claims).  We can not deviate from that
  466. >>      message on forums such as reddit or 4chan or the something awful
  467. >>      forums without risking a ban (or worse if we aren't anonymous).
  468. > Sources?  Again this is critical.  Your opinions (or mine) aren't really
  469. > relevant.
  470. >
  471. > As a side matter, I think you are mistaken actually.  I've seen vibrant
  472. > discussions at reddit in which people DO disagree with Sarkeesian.  And
  473. > no one is getting banned for that.
  474. >
  475. > I caution you to be careful with language like "SJWs won't allow us to
  476. > disagree" unless there is an actual ban on it.  If there's isn't, then
  477. > it would be more accurate to say "SJWs won't allow us to disagree
  478. > without them piping up to say we are wrong."  Very different things -
  479. > one is silencing, the other is debate.
  480. >
  481. >> 48.
  482. >>      
  483. >> 49.
  484. >>      That's not all we are concerned about.  We are concerned about our
  485. >>      journalists and the managers of game development companies sexually
  486. >>      exploiting young ladies like Zoe Quinn.  We are concerned about game
  487. >>      development contests like the IGF being rigged.  We are concerned
  488. >>      about being disenfranchised through smear campaigns and censorship
  489. >>      and old boy networks controlling our media.  Why do you think we are
  490. >>      all on a hash tag?  You really think twitter was our first choice to
  491. >>      discuss such complicated issues?  No.  We were driven to twitter
  492. >>      because we can not have rational, honest conversations elsewhere,
  493. >>      and the media won't discuss any of these issues with us honestly.
  494. >>       That's why we are stuck on this hash tag trying to convey complex
  495. >>      ideas 140 characters at a time.
  496. > "We were driven to twitter because we can not have rational, honest
  497. > conversations elsewhere" - that doesn't ring true to me, are you sure?
  498. > The last I checked there are hundreds of wide open places for such
  499. > discussions.  There's no reason to be forced into 140 characters.
  500. >
  501. > Start a blog (many platforms available)
  502. > Start a subreddit
  503. > Start a wikia (Wikia is very gamer friendly obviously)
  504. > Get prominent people in the community to write editorials for non-gaming
  505. > media like newspapers
  506. > Start a standalone website (many tech savvy people in gamergate community)
  507. >
  508. > My point is that if you step outside the gg circle, and think about how
  509. > it sounds to an outsider, it's not very convincing to say "We had to go
  510. > to twitter because it's the only place we can express ourselves".
  511. >
  512. > Notice that I didn't say "go to Wikipedia" although I am encouraging you
  513. > personally to do so, because I think that's a different thing.  If you
  514. > want to gather like minded individuals to thoughtfully campaign for
  515. > something, there are many platforms for it.  Wikipedia is about writing
  516. > an encyclopedia so I strongly discourage campaigning there.
  517. >
  518. >> 51.
  519. >>      The #GamerGate article asserts that this is about our objections to
  520. >>      casual gamers, which is complete bullshit.  First of all, we all
  521. >>      enjoy casual games.  Casual game enthusiasts don't actually go to
  522. >>      places like Gamasutra to learn about casual games, though, because
  523. >>      places like Gamasutra do not report on casual games.  I wish they
  524. >>      did, because I hate it when I buy a crappy android game.  Nobody
  525. >>      reviews them, though (not well, at least).  The best we have are
  526. >>      Google Play store customer reviews, which aren't that reliable.
  527. > Well so I don't know what you read but as of this moment, the Wikipedia
  528. > article does not say "this is about our objections to casual gamers".
  529. > And we should draw a distinction between casual games and causal gamers,
  530. > right?
  531. >
  532. > Casual games are games like you mention - android games.  Angry Birds, etc.
  533. >
  534. > Casual gamers are people like me - when I play games I tend to play
  535. > traditional deep games. (Currently Civ and Minecraft).  But I'm not part
  536. > of the gaming subculture - I just play games sometimes.
  537. >
  538. > Right now, though, the Wikipedia entry only mentions this by way of
  539. > broad contextual background.
  540. >
  541. >>       Since the beginning of this, even today, the games press has not
  542. >>      actually changed their focus to casual games.  They did declare that
  543. >>      gamers are dead, which is not a way to talk about casual games more.
  544. >>       It is a way to spit in our faces when we expressed concern that
  545. >>      their ethical standards are too lax.  That is why their traffic is
  546. >>      down and why advertisers are pulling away from funding them.
  547. > Well, that and Wikia's traffic growth means that the best journalism
  548. > about games is written by gamers themselves. :-)
  549. >
  550. > So going back to the "casual" thing - reread that whole section and
  551. > let's have another think about.  This time read it with the distinction
  552. > I made above between casual gamers and casual games in mind.
  553. >
  554. > I think the key is that it is true that as games have gone more
  555. > mainstream (serious games, not just casual ones) there has been a wider
  556. > audience and more attention paid (by everyone) to issues of gender
  557. > representation.  That strikes me as obviously true and obviously
  558. > important for a newcomer to the topic who is reading Wikipedia to
  559. > understand.
  560. >
  561. >> 52.
  562. >>      
  563. >> 53.
  564. >>      The #GamerGate article has a million other issues.  It does not
  565. >>      explain the history of the #GamerGate tag, for example.
  566. > Is there a reliable source for that history?  If not, then I think your
  567. > efforts might be well directed to trying to make that happen.  Because
  568. > it just isn't right for Wikipedia to do original historical research.
  569. >
  570. >>      Let me know if you want me to cite any of this, because I have
  571. >>      citations for everything I'm saying.  This post is getting kind of
  572. >>      long, though, so for brevity and readability I'm skipping citations
  573. >>      for now.
  574. > Sure, I understand.  Just know that in all discussions with Wikipedians,
  575. > you're very well advised to cite everything and to work VERY VERY hard
  576. > to make sure that whatever you say is fully backed up in the citation
  577. > and indeed if there is some controversial statement in the original
  578. > source, you'll want to say something milder.
  579. >
  580. >>      The #GamerGate article also never mentions the numerous charities we
  581. >>      have contributed to, to the Women in Gaming project and to fight
  582. >>      cancer and to fight teen suicide.
  583. > References.  (I know, I'm a broken record.)
  584. >
  585. >>      There are more problems and rules this article breaks.  It is
  586. >>      advocacy, scandal mongering, it's not an encyclopedic subject
  587. >>      because anything you say about #GamerGate today could easily be
  588. >>      false in a week (Wikipedia is not a newspaper), the citations are
  589. >>      almost all to editorial opinion pieces and... much more.  Citing
  590. >>      Leigh Alexander's opinion as reliable on a #GamerGate article is
  591. >>      like citing Hitler's opinion on an article about Jews.  She is a
  592. >>      bigger enemy of #GamerGate than Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.
  593. >>       Anyway, I'll get into all of those details on Wikipedia talk pages.
  594. > When speaking to the Wikipedians I strongly recommend avoiding
  595. > inflammatory rhetoric about Hitler and Jews.
  596. >
  597. > Actually, I recommend that to you as a life recommendation generally.
  598. >
  599. > Hitler killed some six million Jews.  Gassed them to death, shot them,
  600. > burned them, buried them in mass graves.  Did all that while engaging in
  601. > a massive violent war that killed tens of millions more.
  602. >
  603. > I had to look up who Leigh Alexander is but I have to imagine that she
  604. > probably hasn't killed anyone.
  605. >
  606. > Extreme rhetoric like that turns people off.  And it turns people off
  607. > for a good reason: it's fucking stupid.
  608. >
  609. >>      I can't post to the #GamerGate talk page, though.  Here's why:
  610. >> 62.
  611. >>      
  612. >> 63.
  613. >>      The #GamerGate article is tagged as a biography of a living person.
  614. >>       I don't understand how a controversy can be a person (back to the
  615. >>      misleading title issue).  Anyway, if it is about #GamerGate as a
  616. >>      person then I can't edit it because it's about me.  I am a member of
  617. >>      #GamerGate.
  618. > That's not a valid argument at all.  It doesn't even contain any actual
  619. > relevant facts!
  620. >
  621. > First, the article is not "tagged as a biography".  The tag says: "This
  622. > article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if
  623. > it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons."
  624. >
  625. > Second, being a person who posted to a hashtag on twitter doesn't make
  626. > the article about you.  Now, I'm going under an assumption here that you
  627. > are not DIRECTLY involved PERSONALLY with the specific details.  That
  628. > is, you don't work at one of the gaming magazine, the article doesn't
  629. > talk about you personally as a developer, or whatever like that.
  630. >
  631. > No one would seriously make the argument you have made - so don't worry
  632. > about it.
  633. >
  634. >>   Now, I could disregard that and post to the talk page
  635. >>      anyway, but that won't help anything.  It's just sleazy to edit your
  636. >>      own article, especially when you don't disclose who you are.
  637. > Unless I've missed something the article isn't about you in the relevant
  638. > sense.  That's just not a valid argument.
  639. >
  640. > It's like saying "Oh no, I can't edit
  641. > because
  642. > I'm a citizen of the United States."  That's just an invalid reading of
  643. > policy.
  644. >
  645. >
  646. >>      That
  647. >>      means that anybody editing this article is probably an opponent of
  648. >>      #GamerGate, since we would not deface our own article by editing it.
  649. >>       We are not ignorant thugs.  That means that our voices so far have
  650. >>      been muted and will continue to be muted unless the article is
  651. >>      re-categorized.
  652. > Except that, as I said, the article is not categorized as a biography
  653. > anyway.
  654. >
  655. > The point of that tag is this: people can't insert unsourced negative
  656. > information about Zoe Quinn, her ex-boyfriend, specific people on ANY
  657. > side of this.  This applies to everyone no matter what their personal
  658. > views are.
  659. >
  660. >>      Correct me if I'm wrong, Jimmy, but it seems to me  that the right
  661. >>      place to complain about articles about yourself is on the
  662. >>      Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, which is located here:
  663. >> 68.
  664. >>      
  665. >> 69.
  666. >>
  667. > That's not going to go over well as people will find the argument silly.
  668. >   "Hi, I'm posting my complaint here because the Gamergate article is
  669. > about me!"  Huh?  No, it actually isn't about you.  (Again, unless I
  670. > missed something!)
  671. >
  672. > I just checked and the name "The Leader of GamerGate" doesn't exist in the article.
  673. >
  674. >>      What I plan to do is to get my concerns all together and post them
  675. >>      to this board some time tomorrow (it will take a while to write).
  676. > I recommend a different approach.  Don't write up a long long post.
  677. > Most people will find it difficult to get through it all and it is
  678. > likely to get derailed if someone finds one upsetting thing in what
  679. > you've written, thus causing drama to ensue.  Humans are humans.
  680. >
  681. > Instead you can make internal notes for yourself about changes you'd
  682. > like to propose.  Break it down into say 10 items.  Or 5 items.  However
  683. > many.  Make each one conceptually a unit.
  684. >
  685. > Then pick the easiest one first.  Run your proposal by me so I can
  686. > advise you on the wording.  I have a good ear for what upsets people,
  687. > and you tend (as pointed out up above) to use pretty over the top rhetoric.
  688. >
  689. > Do the first one.  Make the edit, post the justification to the talk
  690. > page.  Be around to answer objections or inquiries.  Let things settle
  691. > down - if you've chosen wisely, things will settle down quickly.  And
  692. > you'll learn a bit about the people there rather than thinking of them
  693. > as some horrible feminist SJW "other".
  694. >
  695. > Then do another one.  And another one.  Keep each item focussed.  Be
  696. > prepared to lose a few debates on your weaker points, or points which
  697. > have been weakly documented in reliable sources.
  698. >
  699. >>   I
  700. >>      will then start spreading the word to my #GamerGate friends to do
  701. >>      the same, so that we can all be heard on the board.  One of us can't
  702. >>      talk for everybody, so we can try to get as many voices involved as
  703. >>      possible.  I will do my best to get every voice I can to post to
  704. >>      this board.  I am sure the admins will fix the problems when they
  705. >>      hear from us.
  706. > You'll be better off understanding that sheer numbers mean very little
  707. > to Wikipedia.  We are pretty immune to pressure.  And unless you can
  708. > find people you absolutely trust to go slow and write with calmness,
  709. > know that inviting people to contribute who are warriors is just not
  710. > going to be helpful.
  711. >
  712. >>      Hopefully, they will just delete the article, because the subject is
  713. >>      really not encyclopedic in nature.  I could understand moving it to
  714. >>      WikiNews, but leaving it on the encyclopedia seems wrong to me.
  715. > It easily meets our notability criteria, so that isn't going to happen.
  716. >
  717. >>      Anyway, thank you for reading this long message.  I will do my best
  718. >>      to keep my Wikipedian bearing and be bold (but from behind an
  719. >>      anonymous proxy if possible... bold doesn't mean stupid).
  720. > You're likely to have trouble editing from an anonymous proxy as we
  721. > generally ban them.  (The banning isn't perfect so you may find a way,
  722. > but it's pretty common that proxies are banned.)
  723. >
  724. > Log in to your account (you have one, right?) and edit from there.  In
  725. > this way, the only people who can see your ip address are "checkusers"
  726. > and there are VERY strict rules and lots of transparency around the use
  727. > of the checkuser tool.  There has never been a problem with it.
  728. >
  729. > --Jimbo
  730. >
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