Jimmy Wales on #GamerGate Wikipedia Article Message 2

bubblesort Sep 30th, 2014 (edited) 4,355 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:10:42 -0400
  2. From: Jimmy Wales <REDACTED>
  3. To: The Leader of GamerGate <>
  4. Subject: Re: #GamerGate Article Issues (I'm bubblesort1 on twitter)
  6. And now that you've found my public email address I'm responding from my
  7. private one.  This one is slightly better but still gets swamped. :-)
  9. I'd like to ask that this conversation be kept private, not because it
  10. is particularly secret in any way but because I need to write casually
  11. and simply and if I were writing for public consumption.
  13. Pastebin stuck a bunch of numbers into your writing so the formatting
  14. below is weird.  I'll just ignore that. :)
  17. >  To be honest, I am not just scared of loosing my
  18. >     account.  I am afraid of being doxxed and threatened in real life.
  19. >      That is what SJWs did to a transgendered teen wikipedia editor just
  20. >     weeks ago.  The following link is redacted for obvious reasons.  The
  21. >     article on Wikipediocracy still exists, but it has been edited since
  22. >     this screen shot has been taken.
  23. >  6.
  24. >      
  25. >  7.
  26. >
  28. Some things need to be said about this:
  30. First, Wikipediocracy is an attack site against Wikipedia, generally
  31. hated by the Wikipedia community.  They are, like many attack groups,
  32. wildly inconsistent.  One day they'll criticize us because someone's
  33. personal information got posted and get into a lather that we don't do
  34. enough to protect people.  The next day, they're doxxing someone.
  36. Second, it is pretty clear to anyone who has looked at all the evidence
  37. that the user in question is not at Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia.
  38.  Doxxing to a home address (or even city) is rude and borderline creepy
  39. but noting that he's active on the Internet in highly misogynist places
  40. is a perfectly valid observation.  Questions that have been raised as to
  41. whether he's really transgendered (a claim it has been said was only
  42. made at Wikipedia and seemingly quite contrary to his online persona
  43. otherwise) give me some pause as well, but are not really particularly
  44. important.
  46. (That last point is difficult to make with delicacy.  It is my personal
  47. belief that, for the most part, we should simply accept people's claims
  48. about their personal identity without question.  It's normally quite
  49. rude to claim that someone isn't *really* transgendered or whatever.
  50. But it's a sticky issue because it's also a huge icky disgusting thing
  51. if someone pretends to be transgendered and then behaves in awful ways
  52. as part of a 4chan-style trolling campaign.  So, let's leave it aside
  53. for the most part but put a small footnote in our minds to be wary.)
  55. People who keep posting his topic ban as a "gotcha" against Wikipedia do
  56. not have my sympathy.  He's exactly the kind of person we should topic ban.
  58. Third, unless the redacted bits contained much more specific information
  59. than it looks, the doxxing was rude and borderline creepy but not
  60. actually a full blown DOXXING with home address, social security
  61. numbers, work phone numbers, and so on.  It's basically just a bit of
  62. googling and noting publicly available information.
  65. >  9.
  66. >     Zoe Quinn linked to this article on her twitter, to spread the
  67. >     doxxing information in order to put this transgendered teen in as
  68. >     much physical danger as possible.
  69. > 10.
  70. >      
  71. > 11.
  72. >     Here are more details on this, with more links:
  73. >
  75. That person X took action Y on the Internet does not imply that it
  76. belongs in their biography nor in an article about the wider incidents
  77. that give it context.  I say this not to argue that it should NOT be
  78. included but to give you guidance on the ONLY way to get it included if
  79. you think it should be.  And that is: you need high quality third party
  80. reliable sources who talk about it as being relevant to the story.
  82. Now, having said that, that's just editing advice.  But let me go a step
  83. further and argue why I think it should NOT be included and call your
  84. attention to some pretty concerning bias in your thinking.  I ask you to
  85. really focus on this next paragraph and don't respond immediately but
  86. just to sit with it.  Have lunch on it, dinner on it.
  88. Your item 9 above contains two separate claims.  First, that Zoe Quinn
  89. linked to this article on her twitter.  Second, it contains a fairly
  90. spectacular and evidence-free personal attack on her by attributing to
  91. her motives that are not provable and not likely to be true.
  93. "to spread the doxxing information in order to put this transgendered
  94. teen in as much physical danger as possible."
  96. I don't know of any evidence in any of Zoe Quinn's biography that would
  97. even begin to suggest that she would want to place anyone in "as much
  98. physical danger as possible".  Indeed, it seems very unlikely.
  100. If you ask me what is the most likely is that she clicked on the
  101. Wikipediocracy link, read the turgid and boring prose just long enough
  102. to see that it was generally favorable to herself, and posted the link
  103. without finishing it or noticing the doxxing.
  105. Because it is not a full blown doxxing, there is virtually no chance
  106. that anyone was put into any physical danger by the article, as rude and
  107. creepy as it is.
  109. Ok last point on this and this is the part that I want you to really sit
  110. with: If you come to this with a mindset that "OMG SHE TRIED TO GET HIM
  111. HURT" then clearly that would strike you as something of great
  112. relevance.  But if you step back and look at the facts, all she did was
  113. tweet a link to a bad article.  That's not really of major biographical
  114. interest.
  116. > 13.
  117. >     That is what we are dealing with.  We get doxxed and physically
  118. >     threatened constantly, especially the transgendered among us.  I
  119. >     could ask what Wikipedia does about these kinds of issues, but I'm
  120. >     not sure what you can do.  Wikipediocracy is not part of Wikipedia.
  122. That's for damn sure.
  124. > 15.
  125. >     So I am scared for my safety but I'm going to try to make things
  126. >     better anyway, because I believe in you, Jimmy.  You are the
  127. >     greatest educator of our generation.  The world would be much more
  128. >     stupid without your work, so when you tell me that Wikipedia is safe
  129. >     and that I should help fix things I'm going to listen to you.  If I
  130. >     get doxxed then I'm out.  I won't risk my health and well being for
  131. >     Wikipedia.  If it comes to that then the Wikipedia Foundation will
  132. >     have to do something about the toxic environment before I'll come
  133. >     back.  Unless I get doxxed and/or threateaned, though, I'm going to
  134. >     give you the benefit of the doubt, because you deserve it.
  136. In terms of assessing your personal risk, I can't really help you.
  137. Certainly the Wikipedians are quite firm against that kind of behavior
  138. and so I don't see what the risk is considering that you are very vocal
  139. on twitter.  If someone wants to go after you, it seems they already
  140. could, and if you come to Wikipedia and make thoughtful arguments then
  141. the chances of trouble seem quite small.  But yes, you should make that
  142. determination for yourself.
  144. > 17.
  145. >     If any of my #gamergate friends are reading this:  I urge you to
  146. >     also give Jimmy Wales the benefit of the doubt and get involved as
  147. >     well.  We can't go on attacking everybody who gets their news about
  148. >     the world from the New York Post and Gamasutra.  It's not their
  149. >     fault they don't know any better.  We have to give more people the
  150. >     chance to learn the truth.  We need more voices and more compassion,
  151. >     even when SJWs and the press attack us from every side with violence
  152. >     and smear campaigns, dehumanizing us to deny us compassion, we need
  153. >     to stand proud and tell the truth.
  155. I would recommend in your interactions with the outside world that you
  156. drop the term "SJWs".  It gives off a militant and combative "us versus
  157. them" vibe that causes people to rightly doubt the objectivity of what
  158. you are saying.  I think it does you a major disservice in terms of
  159. trying to get the message out to the wider world.  (New York Times, etc.)
  161. There is a view, not correct but not entirely without foundation, that
  162. there is a massive huge community of virulently reactionary dimwits who
  163. want games with hapless damsels with cartoon-hot bodies and all the
  164. rest, who get upset with any criticism or commentary about the problems
  165. with that and lash out at "feminazis", "SJWs", etc.  You and I both know
  166. that this is not the majority of the gaming world by a long shot, but it
  167. is a group that absolutely does exist and have been doing a lot of harm
  168. to the reputation of games and the gaming industry and the gaming community.
  170. It may be a convenient shorthand for internal discussions, but even
  171. there I think it's dangerous.  Labeling people makes it harder to make
  172. distinctions among them.  We see this in the unfortunately dismal state
  173. of political discourse in the US all the time.  "liberal" and
  174. "conservative" are thrown out as epithets in a way that completely
  175. blinds people to real policy issues.  It becomes a... video game where
  176. you shoot the bad guys and save the good guys.  Not helpful to real
  177. progress in society.
  179. Here's a great example from recent times.  Congressman Cory Gardner is
  180. running for Senate in Colorado as a Republican.  I don't support or
  181. oppose him.  I'm just observing the discourse.
  183. The Democrats trotted out the usual playbook that he's a crazed right
  184. winger who wants to ban birth control.  Problem is, he's in favor of
  185. wide access to contraception and even proposes that the birth control
  186. pill be made available without a prescription.
  188. I'm sure there's plenty to love or hate about the guy but the point is
  189. the *label* of "right wing Republican" caused the debate to deteriorate
  190. into nonsense.
  192. Similarly, labeling people as "SJWs" is not conducive to serious respect
  193. and consideration of a variety of viewpoints of people who have varying
  194. degrees of concern and criticism of gaming culture.
  196. (I've removed the long and mostly speculative discussion of who fucked
  197. who and when because I don't think the blow by blow is relevant -
  198. particularly not when pieced together from various blog posts - again,
  199. high quality reliable third party sources are key.)
  201. >     These appearances of impropriety exist.  No neutral person can claim
  202. >     otherwise.
  204. I think that's the main valid point in what you are saying but the point
  205. and should be made without sounding like a personal digging into some
  206. woman's sex life.  Let me explain further.
  208. The problems with corruption in the magazine industry are rampant.  Let
  209. me give a completely separate example so as to make this less emotional.
  211. Boats.
  213. I like boats.  I have a small family speedboat (19 footer) and I'm
  214. fortunate in my life to know a lot of super wealthy people and sometimes
  215. get invited to visit on really big boats.  So I read boat magazines.
  216. Mainly I read ones relevant to me, i.e. about normal family boats -
  217. maybe I'll move up to a 24 footer next year!)
  219. But the one thing I know for sure is that when I'm reading boat
  220. magazines I'm not reading independent hard hitting journalism with
  221. quality reviews.  I'm reading advertiser-supported industry-friendly
  222. borderline-pr puffery.  Part of that is just natural: the people who go
  223. into journalism at boat magazines love boats too!  So they are naturally
  224. positive.  But part of that is just that the whole industry is "in bed"
  225. together.
  227. I mean that in every way.  Loaner boats.  Weekend jaunts.  They know
  228. each other - attend the same boat shows, build relationships.  It's
  229. party unavoidable but partly it's a fertile ground for corruption.
  231. That's true of a lot of "subculture" journalism.
  233. NOW.  Let's switch back to gaming.  There's a massive problem here as
  234. well.  But the problem is not with some relatively unimportant indy game
  235. developer and who she slept with, the problem is with massive issues
  236. with major game magazines being industry-compromised.
  238. So the problem as I see it is that lots of people in #gamergate claim to
  239. be about that corruption bit, but instead are massively obsessed with
  240. Zoe Quinn's sex life.
  242. So, is there an appearance of impropriety?  Sure and the details don't
  243. matter.  An ex boyfriend with little honor decided to go public in a
  244. vicious way about a sad breakup and a firestorm ensued.  But it isn't
  245. really IMPORTANT in the way that massive corruption in the magazine
  246. industry is.
  249. From here on I'm going to try to stick to specific editing advice and
  250. advice about talking to the community.  I will sound like a broken
  251. record: it's all about sources, sources, sources.  Your analysis or mine
  252. may be interesting to us, but not relevant for Wikipedia.
  255. >     First of all, the title of the article is misleading.  Gamergate is
  256. >     not a controversy.  To be perfectly objective, GamerGate is a
  257. >     hashtag.
  259. What do reliable sources call it?  To me it is both a controversy and a
  260. hashtag.  And in a way, it's a movement.  One of the difficulties is
  261. that there is really no way to say "Supporters of GamerGate believe..."
  262. because there is no central authority or manifesto that people sign up to.
  264. >  The #GamerGate movement has actually undergone a few
  265. >     different names, informally.  Before #GamerGate it was Burgers and
  266. >     Fries.  Before that it was some operation to save TFYC (the specific
  267. >     name of which slips my mind at the moment).  Before that it was
  268. >     something involving WizardChan or CYChan or Tumblr, the details of
  269. >     which are difficult to source.  You could accurately refer to
  270. >     GamerGate as a movement, or one name for a movement, but it is
  271. >     absolutely not a controversy.
  273. When hundreds of people are screaming at each other all over the
  274. internet, yeah, it's a controversy.
  276. Here's a google news link:
  279. Virtually every source - including those with NO ties to the
  280. publications involve in the controversy - calls it a controversy.
  282. I recommend not trying to change the name of the article.
  284. >     Second of all, the article says that GamerGate is about, "a
  285. >     controversy in video game culture concerning ingrained[1] issues of
  286. >     sexism and misogyny in the gamer community and journalistic ethics
  287. >     in the online gaming press, particularly conflicts of interest
  288. >     between video game journalists and developers."
  289. > 46.
  290. >      
  291. > 47.
  292. >     That is incorrect and oversimplifying things a lot.  It deliberately
  293. >     skews towards the SJW perspective.  GamerGate is a movement that
  294. >     relates directly to a dozen different things, and the situations we
  295. >     are addressing change constantly.  As more problems pop up we do our
  296. >     best to handle them.  We are concerned about sexism and about
  297. >     censorship.  I don't have numbers on this, but it is my impression
  298. >     that most of us have been censored for trying to discuss things like
  299. >     Feminist Frequency honestly.  On most forums, SJWs won't allow us to
  300. >     disagree with Sarkeesian's assertions, no matter how outlandish they
  301. >     might be.  For example, she says that female corpses are sexy but
  302. >     male corpses are not.  She says that games shape our reality and
  303. >     spread misogyny (the statistical correlation for that goes in the
  304. >     opposite direction Sarkeesian claims).  We can not deviate from that
  305. >     message on forums such as reddit or 4chan or the something awful
  306. >     forums without risking a ban (or worse if we aren't anonymous).
  308. Sources?  Again this is critical.  Your opinions (or mine) aren't really
  309. relevant.
  311. As a side matter, I think you are mistaken actually.  I've seen vibrant
  312. discussions at reddit in which people DO disagree with Sarkeesian.  And
  313. no one is getting banned for that.
  315. I caution you to be careful with language like "SJWs won't allow us to
  316. disagree" unless there is an actual ban on it.  If there's isn't, then
  317. it would be more accurate to say "SJWs won't allow us to disagree
  318. without them piping up to say we are wrong."  Very different things -
  319. one is silencing, the other is debate.
  321. > 48.
  322. >      
  323. > 49.
  324. >     That's not all we are concerned about.  We are concerned about our
  325. >     journalists and the managers of game development companies sexually
  326. >     exploiting young ladies like Zoe Quinn.  We are concerned about game
  327. >     development contests like the IGF being rigged.  We are concerned
  328. >     about being disenfranchised through smear campaigns and censorship
  329. >     and old boy networks controlling our media.  Why do you think we are
  330. >     all on a hash tag?  You really think twitter was our first choice to
  331. >     discuss such complicated issues?  No.  We were driven to twitter
  332. >     because we can not have rational, honest conversations elsewhere,
  333. >     and the media won't discuss any of these issues with us honestly.
  334. >      That's why we are stuck on this hash tag trying to convey complex
  335. >     ideas 140 characters at a time.
  337. "We were driven to twitter because we can not have rational, honest
  338. conversations elsewhere" - that doesn't ring true to me, are you sure?
  339. The last I checked there are hundreds of wide open places for such
  340. discussions.  There's no reason to be forced into 140 characters.
  342. Start a blog (many platforms available)
  343. Start a subreddit
  344. Start a wikia (Wikia is very gamer friendly obviously)
  345. Get prominent people in the community to write editorials for non-gaming
  346. media like newspapers
  347. Start a standalone website (many tech savvy people in gamergate community)
  349. My point is that if you step outside the gg circle, and think about how
  350. it sounds to an outsider, it's not very convincing to say "We had to go
  351. to twitter because it's the only place we can express ourselves".
  353. Notice that I didn't say "go to Wikipedia" although I am encouraging you
  354. personally to do so, because I think that's a different thing.  If you
  355. want to gather like minded individuals to thoughtfully campaign for
  356. something, there are many platforms for it.  Wikipedia is about writing
  357. an encyclopedia so I strongly discourage campaigning there.
  359. > 51.
  360. >     The #GamerGate article asserts that this is about our objections to
  361. >     casual gamers, which is complete bullshit.  First of all, we all
  362. >     enjoy casual games.  Casual game enthusiasts don't actually go to
  363. >     places like Gamasutra to learn about casual games, though, because
  364. >     places like Gamasutra do not report on casual games.  I wish they
  365. >     did, because I hate it when I buy a crappy android game.  Nobody
  366. >     reviews them, though (not well, at least).  The best we have are
  367. >     Google Play store customer reviews, which aren't that reliable.
  369. Well so I don't know what you read but as of this moment, the Wikipedia
  370. article does not say "this is about our objections to casual gamers".
  371. And we should draw a distinction between casual games and causal gamers,
  372. right?
  374. Casual games are games like you mention - android games.  Angry Birds, etc.
  376. Casual gamers are people like me - when I play games I tend to play
  377. traditional deep games. (Currently Civ and Minecraft).  But I'm not part
  378. of the gaming subculture - I just play games sometimes.
  380. Right now, though, the Wikipedia entry only mentions this by way of
  381. broad contextual background.
  383. >      Since the beginning of this, even today, the games press has not
  384. >     actually changed their focus to casual games.  They did declare that
  385. >     gamers are dead, which is not a way to talk about casual games more.
  386. >      It is a way to spit in our faces when we expressed concern that
  387. >     their ethical standards are too lax.  That is why their traffic is
  388. >     down and why advertisers are pulling away from funding them.
  390. Well, that and Wikia's traffic growth means that the best journalism
  391. about games is written by gamers themselves. :-)
  393. So going back to the "casual" thing - reread that whole section and
  394. let's have another think about.  This time read it with the distinction
  395. I made above between casual gamers and casual games in mind.
  397. I think the key is that it is true that as games have gone more
  398. mainstream (serious games, not just casual ones) there has been a wider
  399. audience and more attention paid (by everyone) to issues of gender
  400. representation.  That strikes me as obviously true and obviously
  401. important for a newcomer to the topic who is reading Wikipedia to
  402. understand.
  404. > 52.
  405. >      
  406. > 53.
  407. >     The #GamerGate article has a million other issues.  It does not
  408. >     explain the history of the #GamerGate tag, for example.
  410. Is there a reliable source for that history?  If not, then I think your
  411. efforts might be well directed to trying to make that happen.  Because
  412. it just isn't right for Wikipedia to do original historical research.
  414. >     Let me know if you want me to cite any of this, because I have
  415. >     citations for everything I'm saying.  This post is getting kind of
  416. >     long, though, so for brevity and readability I'm skipping citations
  417. >     for now.
  419. Sure, I understand.  Just know that in all discussions with Wikipedians,
  420. you're very well advised to cite everything and to work VERY VERY hard
  421. to make sure that whatever you say is fully backed up in the citation
  422. and indeed if there is some controversial statement in the original
  423. source, you'll want to say something milder.
  425. >     The #GamerGate article also never mentions the numerous charities we
  426. >     have contributed to, to the Women in Gaming project and to fight
  427. >     cancer and to fight teen suicide.
  429. References.  (I know, I'm a broken record.)
  431. >     There are more problems and rules this article breaks.  It is
  432. >     advocacy, scandal mongering, it's not an encyclopedic subject
  433. >     because anything you say about #GamerGate today could easily be
  434. >     false in a week (Wikipedia is not a newspaper), the citations are
  435. >     almost all to editorial opinion pieces and... much more.  Citing
  436. >     Leigh Alexander's opinion as reliable on a #GamerGate article is
  437. >     like citing Hitler's opinion on an article about Jews.  She is a
  438. >     bigger enemy of #GamerGate than Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.
  439. >      Anyway, I'll get into all of those details on Wikipedia talk pages.
  441. When speaking to the Wikipedians I strongly recommend avoiding
  442. inflammatory rhetoric about Hitler and Jews.
  444. Actually, I recommend that to you as a life recommendation generally.
  446. Hitler killed some six million Jews.  Gassed them to death, shot them,
  447. burned them, buried them in mass graves.  Did all that while engaging in
  448. a massive violent war that killed tens of millions more.
  450. I had to look up who Leigh Alexander is but I have to imagine that she
  451. probably hasn't killed anyone.
  453. Extreme rhetoric like that turns people off.  And it turns people off
  454. for a good reason: it's fucking stupid.
  456. >     I can't post to the #GamerGate talk page, though.  Here's why:
  457. > 62.
  458. >      
  459. > 63.
  460. >     The #GamerGate article is tagged as a biography of a living person.
  461. >      I don't understand how a controversy can be a person (back to the
  462. >     misleading title issue).  Anyway, if it is about #GamerGate as a
  463. >     person then I can't edit it because it's about me.  I am a member of
  464. >     #GamerGate.
  466. That's not a valid argument at all.  It doesn't even contain any actual
  467. relevant facts!
  469. First, the article is not "tagged as a biography".  The tag says: "This
  470. article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if
  471. it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons."
  473. Second, being a person who posted to a hashtag on twitter doesn't make
  474. the article about you.  Now, I'm going under an assumption here that you
  475. are not DIRECTLY involved PERSONALLY with the specific details.  That
  476. is, you don't work at one of the gaming magazine, the article doesn't
  477. talk about you personally as a developer, or whatever like that.
  479. No one would seriously make the argument you have made - so don't worry
  480. about it.
  482. >  Now, I could disregard that and post to the talk page
  483. >     anyway, but that won't help anything.  It's just sleazy to edit your
  484. >     own article, especially when you don't disclose who you are.  
  486. Unless I've missed something the article isn't about you in the relevant
  487. sense.  That's just not a valid argument.
  489. It's like saying "Oh no, I can't edit
  490. because
  491. I'm a citizen of the United States."  That's just an invalid reading of
  492. policy.
  495. >     That
  496. >     means that anybody editing this article is probably an opponent of
  497. >     #GamerGate, since we would not deface our own article by editing it.
  498. >      We are not ignorant thugs.  That means that our voices so far have
  499. >     been muted and will continue to be muted unless the article is
  500. >     re-categorized.
  502. Except that, as I said, the article is not categorized as a biography
  503. anyway.
  505. The point of that tag is this: people can't insert unsourced negative
  506. information about Zoe Quinn, her ex-boyfriend, specific people on ANY
  507. side of this.  This applies to everyone no matter what their personal
  508. views are.
  510. >     Correct me if I'm wrong, Jimmy, but it seems to me  that the right
  511. >     place to complain about articles about yourself is on the
  512. >     Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, which is located here:
  513. > 68.
  514. >      
  515. > 69.
  516. >
  518. That's not going to go over well as people will find the argument silly.
  519.  "Hi, I'm posting my complaint here because the Gamergate article is
  520. about me!"  Huh?  No, it actually isn't about you.  (Again, unless I
  521. missed something!)
  523. I just checked and the name "The Leader of GamerGate" doesn't exist in the article.
  525. >     What I plan to do is to get my concerns all together and post them
  526. >     to this board some time tomorrow (it will take a while to write).
  528. I recommend a different approach.  Don't write up a long long post.
  529. Most people will find it difficult to get through it all and it is
  530. likely to get derailed if someone finds one upsetting thing in what
  531. you've written, thus causing drama to ensue.  Humans are humans.
  533. Instead you can make internal notes for yourself about changes you'd
  534. like to propose.  Break it down into say 10 items.  Or 5 items.  However
  535. many.  Make each one conceptually a unit.
  537. Then pick the easiest one first.  Run your proposal by me so I can
  538. advise you on the wording.  I have a good ear for what upsets people,
  539. and you tend (as pointed out up above) to use pretty over the top rhetoric.
  541. Do the first one.  Make the edit, post the justification to the talk
  542. page.  Be around to answer objections or inquiries.  Let things settle
  543. down - if you've chosen wisely, things will settle down quickly.  And
  544. you'll learn a bit about the people there rather than thinking of them
  545. as some horrible feminist SJW "other".
  547. Then do another one.  And another one.  Keep each item focussed.  Be
  548. prepared to lose a few debates on your weaker points, or points which
  549. have been weakly documented in reliable sources.
  551. >  I
  552. >     will then start spreading the word to my #GamerGate friends to do
  553. >     the same, so that we can all be heard on the board.  One of us can't
  554. >     talk for everybody, so we can try to get as many voices involved as
  555. >     possible.  I will do my best to get every voice I can to post to
  556. >     this board.  I am sure the admins will fix the problems when they
  557. >     hear from us.
  559. You'll be better off understanding that sheer numbers mean very little
  560. to Wikipedia.  We are pretty immune to pressure.  And unless you can
  561. find people you absolutely trust to go slow and write with calmness,
  562. know that inviting people to contribute who are warriors is just not
  563. going to be helpful.
  565. >     Hopefully, they will just delete the article, because the subject is
  566. >     really not encyclopedic in nature.  I could understand moving it to
  567. >     WikiNews, but leaving it on the encyclopedia seems wrong to me.
  569. It easily meets our notability criteria, so that isn't going to happen.
  571. >     Anyway, thank you for reading this long message.  I will do my best
  572. >     to keep my Wikipedian bearing and be bold (but from behind an
  573. >     anonymous proxy if possible... bold doesn't mean stupid).
  575. You're likely to have trouble editing from an anonymous proxy as we
  576. generally ban them.  (The banning isn't perfect so you may find a way,
  577. but it's pretty common that proxies are banned.)
  579. Log in to your account (you have one, right?) and edit from there.  In
  580. this way, the only people who can see your ip address are "checkusers"
  581. and there are VERY strict rules and lots of transparency around the use
  582. of the checkuser tool.  There has never been a problem with it.
  584. --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
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!