Advanced Search Protips

Viral Video Showing Gyoza Maker Repeatedly Failing Its One Job Strikes Social Media As Very Relatable
'Warhammer' Fanbase Up In Arms Over Introduction Of Female Custodes
This TikTok Actor's Questionable Dialogue For A Doctor He Made Up Has Inspired Sketches Galore
Tiger Woods Appears To Shake Hands With A Tree, In Eminently Memeable Situation
Four Years Ago, The Internet Was Blessed With The Iconic 'CatJAM' Video

+10

GamerGate - Wikipedia on Gamergate

PROTIP: Press the ← and → keys to navigate the gallery, 'g' to view the gallery, or 'r' to view a random image.

September 2014 (UTC) Redaction taken care of. And we have no proof of any of the things that Gjoni said are accurate. It's all hearsay that was intentionally posted to bring her down out of revenge and y'all are eating it up-Ryūlóng (琉司22:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC) We're not framing the issue using the sources that have been called into question on the matter (eg, we're not using gaming sites for the main points, we're using national newspapers and magazines). And if those sources are framing it that way, we sorta have to follow. _MASEM (t) 18:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC) And some of the editors wont even let both the issue be mentioned in the first sentence. So i think its best to put both issues on the first line. -Torga (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC) We cover it as the reliable sources cover it. you would need to show that reliable sources are generally covering them equally and not focusing on the harassment and covering the reporter-developer issue as a footnote. Given that everything i have seen published to date is "harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment journalistic ethics harassment harassment" you will need to be coming up with A LOT of sources that focus solely on the journalistic ethics to have a basis. - TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC) l personally agree with Torga on this issue. The larger publications have worded it the way they have because the corrupt gaming publications reporting on it first focused on the harassment of key members guilty of collusion and refused to acknowledge their own guilt. In the mainstream media's mind the harassment is the main focus. To people who actually care about what's going on here, the collusion and corruption in the games journalism industry is the real issue, so they both are deserving of a first line focus. It's a bit difficult to cite sources when all the usual sources you'd cite are controlling the information that gets covered. Since Wikipedia's sources don't readily accept blogs, etc. even readily available evidence can't be cited. -JoeyEbidoku (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC) This article is extremely biased. The sources it uses are all accused of being corrupt. The information in this article is leading many people on the internet to assume wrong things about GamerGate and to keep spreading lies about what is actually happening. Either fix the bias, or delete this article. Inuyasha8888 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC) The focus of the article will remain as-is, as those accusing reliable sources of "corruption" are themselves non-reliable. This article is about misogyny in the gaming industry, and the fallout of a person being attacked and harassed by others on the internet. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Since there are no reliable sources that says those sources are not reliable, they are not until provided evidence. As such, those sources that say they are corrupted are thus not reliable anymore then sources trying to instill or imply that Iraq had weapon capabilities As such, since the sources are unreliable due to corruption. This article is about anti-male misandry in the gaming industry, that includes gaming "journalists" and the fallout of people being attacked and harassed by others on the internet. 109.225.100.76 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 109.225.100.76, sources don't need confirmation from RSes to not be reliable; if this were the case, nearly every YouTube channel, forum account, or GoDaddy site on the Internet would be presumed reliable and we'd be able to create our own RSes to confirm our other RSes as reliable. I think Zoe Quinn is clearly and unequivocally the New York Yankees of positive reviews and Anita Sarkeesian is contributing to the discussion no more helpfully than the average <10-post Stormfront user does to serious discussion of politics and history, but we can only cover what reliable sources do for a controversial issue like this, even if in reality journalism integrity is much more of important and widely discussed issue here. Remember, per WP:V, Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. The fact that this isn't enough for a real person to actually get an understanding of the situation is one reason you shouldn't use Wikipedia as your only news source. Tezero (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

View Gallery Random Image

Top Comments

winton overwat

winton overwat

Sep 21, 2014 at 01:36AM EDT

I have commented on that a few times, but here it goes again, someone screencap me if you wish:

Wikipedia is not an unbreakable bastion of truth. It is repository of information gathered from other sources. Wikipedia takes no position on issues, instead only documenting 3rd-party reactions. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is only as powerful as the sources you have to back a position. As long as the media keeps shining a negative light on GG, Wikipedia will mirror the same light.

+17

The Ultimate Paragon

The Ultimate Paragon

Sep 21, 2014 at 12:08PM EDT

Lies are Truth

Bias is Neutrality

Discrimination is Equality

+3

+ Add a Comment

Comments (9)

Display Comments

Legal Information: Know Your Meme ® is a trademark of Literally Media Ltd. By using this site, you are agreeing by the site's terms of use and privacy policy and DMCA policy.
© 2007-2024 Literally Media Ltd.