Jimmy Wales on #GamerGate Wikipedia Article Message 4

Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:15:35 -0400
From: Jimmy Wales <REDACTED>
To: The Leader of GamerGate <GamerGateLeader@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: #GamerGate Article Issues (I'm bubblesort1 on twitter)

On 9/28/14, 5:23 PM, The Leader of GamerGate wrote:
> Thank you for your thoughtful message.

You are welcome.  I actually have no idea why you are now viciously
attacking me on twitter.  Please don't do that.

> You caught me on Goodwin's law... aww, that's so embarrassing!  I was
> tired when I was writing, it won't happen again.  You're right.  I
> should have compared Leigh Alexander talking about #GamerGate to Sarah
> Palin talking about Democrats or Hillary Clinton talking about
> Republicans.  It's just so out there it's offensive to my people.

Yes, that's fine.

> When somebody says they have been harassed online or talks about an
> incident of harassment the first reaction must never be skepticism or
> changing the subject.  Ever.

I agree with you 100%.  And so I don't know what you are angry about or
what the next several paragraphs are even referring to.

> Talking about how your buddies were harassed by GamerGaters
> or demanding evidence or noting that we can't know for certain if they
> were harassed is wrong.

I have not talked about my buddies being harassed by GamerGaters at all.
 Indeed, I don't think any of my buddies have even *heard* of GamerGate.


> It dehumanizes the person in question,  and the
> person you are speaking to will probably start talking about how many
> more victims their side has than yours, which results in comparing body
> counts and escalation (we do have much more victims than you, BTW).

More victims than me?  I'm not on either side of this conflict and so I
don't even think about which side has more victims.  And I agree with
you completely that going down a path of consideration of "counting
victims" is useless and counter-productive in the extreme.

> Then tempers flare and everything gets worse.  Even looking at what you
> wrote about it makes me angry, which is why I'm top posting like this.
> I don't even want to scroll past it.  It puts me in a bad mind set.

Can you tell me what in particular made you angry?

> Why not let people get mad, though?  Truth is more important than
> people's feelings, isn't it?  Well, yes, when the truth is what is being
> talked about.  If you don't have hard, cited evidence to bring to the
> conversation then all you can do is either be silent or show some
> humanity.  If you really want a less toxic environment and want people
> to start taking online harassment more seriously then take it seriously
> yourself.  Besides, what does a little ackgnowledgement and sympathy
> cost you?  Nothing.  I mean, unless somebody is trying to shove it into
> a Wikipedia article without attribution or something, just express some
> sympathy and move on.  At the very least you will throw them off guard,
> LOL.

I agree completely and this is how I conduct myself at all times.  I
don't know what you are talking about.  Let me recite some philosophical
principles that I hold:

1.  The truth is really important.
2.  People's feelings are really important.  Usually the two are not in
conflict, but when they are good manners and morals demands of us that
we proceed thoughtfully, slowly, gently, with love in our hearts and
alertness and reason.
4. Online harassment is a huge massive problem that we should all take
seriously in all cases.

> Now, we all make mistakes with this from time to time.  I'll be the
> first to admit I've done it in the past, I've responded to somebody
> getting harassed with "but look what happened to my friend!"  That's
> wrong, though.

I, too, have made mistakes.  I don't think I'm particularly prone to the
"but look what happened to my friend" fallacy, though.  And certainly I
have not done this today

>  It took a while to realize it, but it was wrong.  It's
> best to take one argument at a time and not act like previous
> conversations set some kind of unchangeable precedent.  On top of that,
> SJWs have been screaming all over the place that you guys want
> harassment taken more seriously, but then you go and do things like
> this.

Am I an 'SJW' now?  That's pretty surprising, I'd have to say.  Why do
you say that?

> It is hypocrisy to only take harassment seriously if it happens
> to people who share the same ideology as you.  I would never minimize
> the incidents where Sarkeesian or Quinn have been harassed.  When my
> friends do it I tell them off, but they never do it because they notice
> when I tear into somebody else for it.  That's really the only reason I
> get nasty over this point.  I need people to pay attention to it.

I agree completely that it is hypocrisy to only take harassment
seriously if it happens to people who share the same ideology as you.
What on earth made you think I would believe otherwise?

> You are a hero of mine, but I would absolutely rip into you if you did
> this in public.

Well, you are ripping into me in private, and I don't even know what
"this" is.

>  I mentioned some doxxings
> on a status and he responded that his friends got doxxed too, without
> acknowledging the doxxings I brought up.  I told him off ruthlessly,
> which caught him by surprise with the sharp shift in tone.  Then we
> talked and he agreed with me that the correct way to handle this kind of
> thing is to show a little humanity.

Yes, I agree with him.  I also think you might have learned a lesson
that going ballistic just because someone didn't respond the way you had
hoped isn't very kind.

> As for your other points... I never considered editing Zoe Quinn's
> post.  I'm just working on one article at a time.

Ok.

>  I also wasn't talking
> about flooding wikipedia with crazy people.

I didn't think you were.  I was just opining that it is worthwhile to be
careful, as a purely practical matter, about who you invite.  Without
making sure that people aren't going to go ballistic at the drop of the
hat, you run the risk of making things worse.  That's not a moral
judgment, just simple practical advice.

> I just figured if GamerGate
> is a person then the more of us that contribute the better.  I mean, I
> know we aren't a person now, but when I wrote that I thought we were.  I
> didn't understand the categorization.  Thanks for clearing that up for
> me.

Sure.  No problem.  Why are you so angry?

  More eyeballs is always good, right?  At the very least, we might
> recruit a few more wikipedians, which I know you are always looking
> for.  Also, I call them SJWs because when I first heard the term Social
> Justice Warrior it was used as a badge of honor when I was working with
> Occupy Wall St.  I worked outreach between 5 different camps, it was
> quite an experience.  SJWs weren't always bad.  The media just twisted
> them.  No way in hell will I ever call them feminists, because that
> would be inaccurate.

Again I recommend against labeling people as a general rule.  SJWs,
feminists, right wingers, lefties, etc.  It's just not, in my long
experience, particularly helpful.

> I apologise for taking up your time but I have decided not to edit
> Wikipedia.

That's fine.

> I wasn't joking when I said that I feared for my safety but
> I was going to do it anyway because I believe in you. When you cast
> disdain on the transgendered teen who was doxxed and wanted to split
> hairs over what is a 'real doxxing' that's just not reassuring.  To be
> clear, I'm not blaming you for the doxxing, and I don't think you could
> have prevented it or anything like that.  I'm just surprised at your
> complete lack of concern for a Wikipedian who was placed into danger
> over something she wrote on your web site.

Perhaps it would be helpful to me if you could explain what you mean.
What danger?  Have you really looked into the situation?  There is
significant evidence that this is not a case of a transgendered teen at
all, but of a 4chan troll playing up.  EVEN SO, I have said quite
clearly that the doxxing was wrong and creepy.  But we don't have to go
into warrior mode about every single thing on the Internet, particularly
when there is significant evidence that it's a hoax.

Treat with respect, sure.  Oppose the doxxing, sure.  But also
acknowledge with a personal footnote to ourselves that it looks like a
fake case all along.

> Do you actually believe it's
> fair game to connect a person's disconnected digital identities across
> different sites in order to make them look bad like that?

No, I think it is vicious and disgusting and creepy and I said so.

> That says something about the culture at Wikipedia.

Actually the culture at Wikipedia opposes this sort of thing quite
strongly.  You've misread what I have said.

>  Maybe you have history with
> her or something, I don't know, but even if you do have history with her
> that does not excuse what happened.

I don't have any history at all.

> From what I understand, when that
> article was published and when Zoe linked to it, there was more than
> enough information published for her to be IDed by her classmates, and
> that's all it takes for a hate crime to happen.

I'm unaware of that.  I also think it is not true.  Can you show me the
details?

> Even if that isn't the
> case, though, it does not matter what she did on Wikipedia, she does not
> deserve to be doxxed.

That's precisely what I said.  I said that it is wrong and creepy.

> Also, don't tell GamerGaters how to deal with non-cis people unless it's
> obvious they are complete idiots about it, because that's just absurd.

I don't even know what this is referring to.  I always recommend that
everyone treat everyone else with respect and kindness.  That's not
particularly amazing advice, but I stand by it.

> I have to be honest, I'm really disappointed in you.  I guess I kind of
> had you on a pedestal or something.

Ok well given that you've completely misunderstood me, I hope that you
will change your mind now.  I don't think there's anything at all to be
disappointed about.

> There is a chance we will tank the market,
> but more than that we will activate the big money at EA and Ubisoft to
> come in and crush your message, because your message can't hold up in a
> larger arena under that much pressure.

Crush *my* message?  What message is that?

--Jimbo