Yo! You must login or signup first!

Gamergate is not going away, not any time soon, so even if media reports were accurate, that would not mean to me that we should compromise on our principles of quality and neutrality in response to a forced narrative My point here is not to say that there is nothing wrong with the consumer revolt I actually think it needs a fair amount of work. But I want you and others to understand that misrepresenting people is not helpful I've recently seen Wikipedia talk pages in which people who are - and I don't know how else to put it - vicious assholes - are misusing Wikipedia's mechanisms to attack the good intentions of volunteers. It is very difficult for me to buy into the notion that Wikipedia is "really about creating a tree encyclopedia" when every single experience I have personally had with it involved admins and editors reverting, locking, banning, etc No, not all editors. But there's a huge contingent to the extent that for good people - and I respect your letter and assume good faith that you are a good person - the name "Wikipedia" is toxic Even if 90% of the supporters are good and 10% are bad, the bad are poisoning the message for everyone. That's not an evaluation of right and wrong, just an observation of a clear fact. You see, a big part of the problem is that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but a wiki. And so there is literaly no way to have any quality control of any kind. There is no way to see what is or is not a biased position in a Wikipedia article I have had several people over the past weeks say to me lt is not about wiki bureaucracy. I was prepared to believe that. But discussions usually very quickly move to edit wars in which double standards are used and the rules are applied in a one-sided way. That's sick The contingent of people who are interested in writing objective articles and to eliminate bias need an actual organization- with a mission statement, with a board of directors, with elected people who represent the encyclopedia. Barring that, you should very much expect the media to continue to accurately report that the Wikipedia community is associated with edit wars, hidden agendas and conflict of interests. But actually, in fact, it is I know that may pain you to hear. You thought you were taking part in a movement that would be about creating a free encyclopedia. A movement that would stand for the right to objective truth of all users That would welcome everybody into the world of knowledge and would shame those who would engage in selling lies as the truth. I admire all of those things But Wikipedia has been permanently tarnished and hijacked by a handful of people who are not what you would hope You might not be the person to enable it. I don't know who is. But I strongly recommend that someone organize an "editor's union" of sorts, with a real mission statement, with real rules, with real organization and leadership Wikipedia's failed autocracy is getting you nowhere, particularly for the reasons I have outlined in this note -A Gamergate Leader

+24

Image #884,507


Uploaded by Kung Fu Cthulhu Dec 21, 2014 at 11:02PM EST

Share Pin Download More

Origin Entry: GamerGate

File type: png

Resolution: (1022px x 397px)

File size: 522 KB


_"*I guess i had to do it if only because people are expecting me to do it. I didn’t even remember this was a thing till yesterday XD*"_ Had to add this because I thought that ppl would actually click the source link and look at the description after all this time
Like...is there any solution to this? Should we start something?
Jalen Hutchinson Studied Culinary Science at Culinary Institute of America (Graduated 2014). Author has 304 answers and 740.1K answer views. 5y Not that I care that much either way, but it did expose a lot of corrupt game developers and game journalists. X Journalists would make claims of people like Anita Sarkeesian "playing video games all her life" when she openly admitted many times she is not a gamer and only starter recently (when it wasn't for an interview). Various developers trading sex or money for good reviews got exposed, journalists who accepted got exposed. People became a bit more critical about supporting a game just because the developer has a victim complex stating tat their game could have only failed because of sexism, instead of their own poor developing skills. What really sealed the deal was opposition often faking their own harassment. Anita sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn have been caught multiple times screenshotting "harassment" while showing that the harrasser's account name in the login. Or when someone called the police to help Sarkeesian against a "very real threat" she was posting about, only for police to find the harasser's messages were coming from her IP address. I just want honesty from the community, and the lies were mostly exposed by the "dreaded" gamergate. 1.3K views • View upvotes 26
View All 4,079 Images

Load 2 Comments

More:


+ Add a Comment

Comments (2)


Display Comments

Add a Comment


+ Add an Image

Image Details

868 views (8 from today)

Uploaded Dec 21, 2014 at 11:02PM EST

Origin Entry

GamerGate

Tags

wikipedia, vivian james, 8chan, gamergate, punished /v/

Claim Authorship Edit History
Textile Embed