Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
9. I know next to nothing about this controversy
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 04:48 PM
Jan 2015

except that it exists, because I'm not a gamer. But I just finished reading a whole, long article about it on Wikipedia which appears to me to be 99.9% favorable to the women and critical of those harassing them, so... I don't quite get what's supposed to be going on. Link below, if others care to see for themselves...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

I don't see the "war on women" in that at all, so if it isn't there in an article specifically about Gamergate then where would one expect to see it, exactly? If it has no reflection in the articles and it's only in the fact of those five particular women being dropped from editing, that decision may have been valid or unfair but whatever else it is, it certainly doesn't constitute a war on women.

The OP article links back to a largely similar one from Gawker, and from what I read on the Wiki piece, I gather that Gawker has itself had some involvement or role of its own in the controversy in some way. I don't know what that says, but it doesn't make the allegations more credible for me.

While I sincerely sympathize with the women who are being threatened by the Gamergaters as described, and that fact that they ARE being bullied in such a manner seems entirely evident, I am not prepared based on this piece to take up pitchforks against Wikipedia as the OP article and its link are clearly trying to persuade readers to do.

I'm aware that there are seemingly valid criticisms about Wikipedia's accuracy on various subjects, but I have to say that on the subjects that I do know a lot about first-hand, their articles have been very well done. So credit where credit is due. It is often a useful site, certainly as worthwhile as lots of others.

I won't be joining the outrage-at-Wikipedia bandwagon just yet, but if more emerges from this story which changes my impression of it, I'll see when / if it happens.

i stopped using wiki a couple years ago, seeing definitions change to mra voice, with feminist seabeyond Jan 2015 #1
Here's the current Wikipedia summary of Gamergate. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #18
Answering that question would require an admission that this OP is BS. Bonobo Jan 2015 #22
I'm genuinely curious. NaturalHigh Feb 2015 #36
Just like the GOP Congress. nt geek tragedy Jan 2015 #2
That blows straight past "bad optics" and directly into the realm of ... 11 Bravo Jan 2015 #3
Fuck GamerGate. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #4
Seriously. KamaAina Jan 2015 #5
^^^ Hong Kong Cavalier Jan 2015 #19
Indeed, fuck Gamer Gate. But Wikipedia is blameless here as far as I can see. Bonobo Jan 2015 #23
I am vehemently opposed to the GamerGate anti-feminists. Maedhros Jan 2015 #6
Unless Wikipedias ToS prohibits women from editing articles... Lancero Jan 2015 #12
I'm sure that Wikipedia has guidelines for banning bad actors. Maedhros Jan 2015 #13
With how broadly they ruled, it's pretty much what happened. Lancero Jan 2015 #15
It looks like this is the Wikipedia rule relevant to this situation: Maedhros Jan 2015 #20
Wikipedia has long used Pseudo-Neutrality and Obscure-rule Mongering daredtowork Jan 2015 #26
I have no feelings for Wikipedia one way or another. Maedhros Jan 2015 #33
It is hard to tell from the Guardian article daredtowork Jan 2015 #34
Agreed - Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. [n/t] Maedhros Feb 2015 #35
They were censored because of the excessive number of edits they had made to the site. Maedhros Jan 2015 #32
It's the first step of a multi-step byzantine process; nobody is as of yet banned Recursion Jan 2015 #25
On the surface, that sounds like bull shit joeglow3 Jan 2015 #7
Now there's a wonderfully biased and non-loaded article... Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #8
Here's another Lancero Jan 2015 #14
One thing this article skates over daredtowork Jan 2015 #28
I know next to nothing about this controversy Waiting For Everyman Jan 2015 #9
I never use Wiki for anything but the most surface definitions. Starry Messenger Jan 2015 #10
Dealing with the credit card company is a pain... Lancero Jan 2015 #11
Seems to be a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Jesus Malverde Jan 2015 #16
It's not a misunderstanding mythology Jan 2015 #27
Well you can cloak it in your media theory daredtowork Jan 2015 #31
anyone who thinks Wikipedia is gender unbiased blackcrow Jan 2015 #17
Do you have examples? joeglow3 Jan 2015 #21
I haven't regularly edited wikipedia since around 2007 daredtowork Jan 2015 #29
I've been following a Wikipedia editors site after hearing about this... Lancero Jan 2015 #24
Sue these people shenmue Jan 2015 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wikipedia Declares War On...»Reply #9