thesoapster
Member
Why do I feel like there is some important information missing here concerning the feminist authors? That, or it looks like one Wikipedia authority figure is simply a piece of shit.
There’s a crossover between the two conflicts. One of the five editors banned from editing articles on gender had previously been an active edit-warrior in the debate over whether or not to move Manning’s page – but arguing against the move. He “was a major anti-Chelsea editor who then came out as false flagging,” Brady explains. In other words, he was arguing against moving the page in an emphatically hostile manner, in order to discredit the people genuinely holding that view.
Why do I feel like there is some important information missing here concerning the feminist authors?
Exactly, not everyone on the "anti" side is clean in this matter. It's important that the article takes as much of an objective view as possible. Eliminating the irrational extremists on both sides seems logical.gamergate is absurd, but that doesn't mean everyone who is anti-gg has an opinion worth being heard on wiki. some of the anti-gamergate people have said and done some pretty vile stuff to push against the movement, so im not convinced this is going to be some big lose for wiki.
Actually read the Gamergate wiki article. Seems pretty much based on the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
Militant feminists are as bad as GG misogynists. If they were editing pages and putting a heavy slant on things from their viewpoint, I think it's understandable. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not opinions, no matter how "good" or "right" most might think they are.
I hope having this opinion isn't a banable offense on GAF.
WHo the fuck told you that? Anti gamergate is anti harassment.
Exactly.that's not how wikipedia is suppose to work. it's just suppose to be facts.
take a look at the KKK page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
it doesn't flat out say they're racist assholes anywhere, just what they did, objectively.
It's in the OP.
Arbcom’s rulings don’t mean the war is over, but for some editors it’s still giving cause for concern. Abigail Brady, a former Wikipedia editor, left the site over its treatment of the page for whistleblower Chelsea Manning, which was kept under Manning’s old name, of Bradley Manning, for months after she came out as transgender.
There’s a crossover between the two conflicts. One of the five editors banned from editing articles on gender had previously been an active edit-warrior in the debate over whether or not to move Manning’s page – but arguing against the move. He “was a major anti-Chelsea editor who then came out as false flagging,” Brady explains. In other words, he was arguing against moving the page in an emphatically hostile manner, in order to discredit the people genuinely holding that view.”
This Gamergate thing is still going on? Oh for fuck sake.
If it were up to me I would just ban everyone involved at this point. Pro, anti GG or whatever, I don't care, just GTFO.
Wikipedia are doing the right thing here.
Well, considering GG has spent the last 5 months arguing against reality I don't really believe in sides in this debate.So in the absence of information about what they did to get penalized, I guess we're assuming that the anti-gg peeps are automatically the victims in this particular instance because they're not on the side we don't like?
If that's true, and if it's only that, then yes, absolutely this is a bad thing.The problem was that the facts being posted by the throwaway GG accounts to the article were false, and the "feminist" editors kept correcting them.
This lead to Wikipedia banning all the editors.
There are probably some insane people who might be for such stupid things, but for the most part it seems that when people make that claim about other people, such as from Sarkeesian, they're just imagining it without any real reason to think so.Plenty of gators are anti-harassment as well. And there are outspoken aGGs who also seem to support cleansing gaming of things they deem problematic (eg GTA5, Hotline Miami 2, HuniePop, Hatred) that GGers would rather not be banned.
Gators certainly have an exaggerated view of their opponents (and vice-versa), but that view is not entirely baseless (also vice-versa).
running a perfectly impartial encyclopedia of this size and scope is probably impossible.
While I will admit I am worried about the implications of this decision I would also like to have all of the facts before passing judgement.
Well it looks like you may have inadvertently converted BurnMuhBread. lol
Wikipedia's quality control for editors and administrators is actually pretty terrible. I've seen some downright petty people that were moderators.
Wikipedia's quality control for editors and administrators is actually pretty terrible. I've seen some downright petty people that were moderators.
When are news and information centers going to realize that some things really do not have two sides and some that claim they do if you dig a little, it's all manufactured bullshit.
The sad thing is wiki is not even claiming that there are two sides. They are going so far as silencing the correct side. That is like a double fail.
I don't understand this whole gamergate thing.
Who are the "pro-gamergate" ? This word makes no sense to me. what is being "anti-gameraget" ? ??
So basically Wikipedia is trying to make it like there are 2 defensible sides to the issue when there is not and then to make things worse, they banned the side on the correct end of the issue.
This is like a news show trying to represent two sides of an issue like how old the universe is. One side being the creationists who believe in a litteral 4000 years old, the other side being the scientific community and it's massive amounts of proof that it's way fucking older. Then the news show only lets the creationists talk.
When are news and information centers going to realize that some things really do not have two sides and some that claim they do if you dig a little, it's all manufactured bullshit.
The sad thing is wiki is not even claiming that there are two sides. They are going so far as silencing the correct side. That is like a double fail.
I still don't know what that is or even want to know. Shows you how much I spend on the gaming side.
Why do I feel like there is some important information missing here concerning the feminist authors? That, or it looks like one Wikipedia authority figure is simply a piece of shit.
Not exactly. We'd have to see the actual edits to make a judgement call on whether the edits were appropriately non-bias. The page is currently locked and only approved editors can actually edit the page. You aren't going to have some random gamer-gate guy changing the contents of the page.
From the Article:
Arbcom’s rulings don’t mean the war is over, but for some editors it’s still giving cause for concern. Abigail Brady, a former Wikipedia editor, left the site over its treatment of the page for whistleblower Chelsea Manning, which was kept under Manning’s old name, of Bradley Manning, for months after she came out as transgender.
There’s a crossover between the two conflicts. One of the five editors banned from editing articles on gender had previously been an active edit-warrior in the debate over whether or not to move Manning’s page – but arguing against the move. He “was a major anti-Chelsea editor who then came out as false flagging,” Brady explains. In other words, he was arguing against moving the page in an emphatically hostile manner, in order to discredit the people genuinely holding that view.”
So basically 1 of the 5 definitely should have been banned.
Wikipedia's quality control for editors and administrators is actually pretty terrible. I've seen some downright petty people that were moderators.
Reading ANY of the Talk pages for entries in orbit of the Internet tells me this has always been the case at Wikipedia. Cliques form, debates on 'notability' veil turf wars that go on for years, etc. Edit fights are petty and frequent over there.
This is good. Stay the fuck away from it and never look back. The best thing ever happened to me was a ban when I discussed about it without proper understanding last summer. Have not wasted a second on it until this article today.
A woman named Anita had sex (gasp). A bunch of virgin gamers were highly upset she didn't give up the box to them. So they harassed and doxxed her, sent death threats to her and her family, told her they wanted to rape her among other things. When other women spoke out they too received the same threats of murder and rape to both the females and their immediate family and friends. And the reason why gamers did this is because of "ethnics in game journalism".
And no I'm not kidding, that's literally gamergate.
but I mean.. how can one be "pro" or "anti" x-gate ?
the suffix "gate" is used to describes a scandal.
How can you be pro or anti scandal ?
You ever heard about people being "pro-watergate" ? the fuck is this shit.
This Gamergate thing is still going on? Oh for fuck sake.
If it were up to me I would just ban everyone involved at this point. Pro, anti GG or whatever, I don't care, just GTFO.
Wikipedia are doing the right thing here.
Wasn't the original complaint of Gamergaters thoroughly debunked when it was found out that Nathan Grayson didn't write anything about Zoe Quinn after they became an item? Why is this even a thing anymore? There's nothing real here.
I don't understand this whole gamergate thing.
Who are the "pro-gamergate" ? This word makes no sense to me. what is being "anti-gameraget" ? ??
The problem for GamerGate is that Wikipedia has rules against inserting libels into peoples pages. When GamerGate started to add stuff about female developers sex lives to various Wikipedia pages, experienced editors removed it. That led in turn to plan B:
Try to put the sexy story into the article.
After it's removed, argue on the talk page repeating the sexy stories there.
When people object, argue that some weblog or student newspaper or political columnist somewhere alluded to that sexy story, so it's got to be there.
When people object, argue about the wording. Can we say they fucked? How about blow job? How about exchanged sexual favors?
When people object to that, try it again on against a different woman
A couple of weeks later, repeat step 1 again.
Tactics
To make this stick, you need three separate editors working together.
the PROVOCATEUR inserts the sexy information and argues for it. Often, this account appears to be new and claims to be a naif, an innocent who simply wants to expand the encyclopedia and happens to be well-versed in WikiLaw.
the PALS cheer on the provocateur, repeating and ringing changes on the provocateurs arguments. If someone reverts the Provocateur, the Pal reinstates the change. Absent an edit war, you only need one Pal, though it helps to have at least two. In an edit war, its important to have plenty of Pals, and to coordinate offsite to make sure there's always a couple of Pals on call.
the BOSS rarely or never edits articles, but is extremely active on the talk page, citing policy to support the Provocateur and encourage the Pals. It helps a lot if the Boss is an administrator. It is useful for the Boss to know when and where the Provocateur will be launching a weapon, but it is essential to hide this: the Provocateur and the Pals can write openly on 8chan if they like, but the Boss must never appear. The Boss dominates the talk page and the complaints (see below) but, not editing the article and always citing policy to the same end, protects the team.
the whole team launches constant COMPLAINTS against their opponents in order to remove opposition. Heres where the Boss is most critical. Pals are expendable, and the Provocateur can be sacrificed at need even if hes banned, he can start a new account and become a Pal, or borrow someone elses disused account and return as a new Provocateur. From the beginning, a major GamerGate goal was to get rid of five specific editors a goal which the draft decision granted them wholesale.
You need this complexity to evade Wikipedia rules developed to protect against cultists and cranks. These rules work adequately against casual vandals and isolated zealots; GamerGate turned into a debacle because here the cultists and cranks were just sophisticated enough to work the levers, though too short of resources (and seeking too awful a result) to escape detection
Yeah, the article as it stands now seems to pretty fairly reflect what Gamergate is.Actually read the Gamergate wiki article. Seems pretty much based on the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
So the Mark Bernstein article outlines how he believes GG baited the bans.
So the idea is that you intentionally target and bait people into edit wars and collude off site to have a buddy play impartial and lodge complaints when your target has been successfully baited.
The problem being is that these guys (8chan's GamerGate board) are constantly coming up with crazy and convoluted schemes on how to attack "SJWs". This one is actually one of the more tame examples of the crap they are pulling off.
But apparently this one worked!
So the Mark Bernstein article outlines how he believes GG baited the bans.
So the idea is that you intentionally target and bait people into edit wars and collude off site to have a buddy play impartial and lodge complaints when your target has been successfully baited.
Come on now. This is reaching into conspiracy theory levels of reaching.
If you read through the arbitration page detailing this whole thing, most of these people were repeat offenders, previously santioned for being involved with edit wars or being unable to remove their own bias while writing. No "baiting" was required here, they were going to self implode on their own.
Please provide examples of anti-GG doing this.The opportunity for any rational discussion in the whole Gamergate debate and surrounding controversies was abandoned long, long ago when all sides decided to use terrible, irrational tactics to prove that they were correct. It turned into a fanatical, almost religious war between ideologues almost as soon as it started.