Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 578:

::It is. Thanks.[[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 00:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

:I am often impressed by the work of both WAPost's Caitlin Dewey and her colleague, Hayley Tsukayama. I this case I am particularly impressed by the careful, one must assume intentional, absence of attribution of these opposition research activities to any ''"Gamergate" boogieman''. Dewey indeed explicitly notes that the activities appear to have been carried out by ''"several dozen"'' persons; even if all of these were also part of the wider ''"Gamergate movement"'', they would be a tiny, lunatic fringe. We should be careful of [[WP:NOR|saying]] ''"Gamergate done this"'', without a source which says ''"Gamergate done this"''. <small>NOTE: I personally consider such opposition research activities, both in online culture wars and in their original political context, to be deplorable; and broadly condemn them. I do, however, concur that the noteworthy aspects of the Gamergate controversy include things like the use of ''opposition research'' in online culture war contexts, far more so than building a list of [[atrocity propaganda]]; it is also interesting to note that so many of the ''dramatis personae'' appear to have experience with opposition research for ''shits and giggles''. I'd also consider noteworthy the use of the tactics of outage culture as a weapon against a culturally imperialistic progressive outrage culture. I look forward to reading the research into these aspects, once written. But maybe that's just me.</small> - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] ^{[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]} 00:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

::Gamergate's reprehensible, criminal and evil actions need no scare quotes. Gamergaters aren’t boogiemen; they are a real and immediate danger to their numerous targets and victims. Whether there exists any part of Gamergate outside what you call the "tiny lunatic fringe" of active harassers is an interesting question because the only notable action of Gamergate is harassment. Is there a "wider" Gamergate movement? How would we (or anyone) know? I personally doubt it. We know of no members, no leaders, no publications, no spokespersons, no communiques, no minutes, no manifestos, no programs, no platforms. We do know of a continuing trail of heinous and cowardly threats, which are the entirety of Gamergate’s works and accomplishments. But perhaps you have secret knowledge of the scope of Gamergate’s membership? [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

:No, we should absolutely not be bringing allegations of (redacted) of a non-public figure to this article. It simply cannot exist. This isn't point scoring. A week ago, Nintendo had this information and chose not to release it. They were lambasted for "caving." That didn't magically go away. Let's not add paragraphs that continue the victimization. Dewey does nothing to paint Rapp in a way that conforms to our BLP policy and Dewey does not bring any new methods to enlighten anyone about harassment. Rapp is being used as a foil and fodder rather than being treated with dignity and respect for her privacy. Please stop trying to contribute to that atmosphere. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 01:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

::Indeed. And Mark, I'm surprised you would redact DHeyward's comment when the quote you added here is just as bad. I've redacted that as well. I'll say it again: [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM]]. Rapp should not be used as a pawn in this article. —<B>[[User:Torchiest|Torchiest]]</B> ^{[[User talk:Torchiest|talk]]}<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Torchiest|edits]]</sub> 02:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

::LletLet me get this straight. You redacted a direct quote from The Washington Post under the cover of BLP? Seriously? [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 03:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

:::Yes, yes they did; in accordance with [[WP:BLP]]@[[WP:AVOIDVICTIM]]. The inclusion of the quote was gratuitous, and unnecessary for discussion here. I apologise for not having redacted it myself. I also concur with {{u|DHeyward}}, {{u|Torchiest}} & others, above, that the inclusion of the aspect, with the sources that we currently have, is [[WP:UNDUE]] and violates [[WP:BLP]]. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] ^{[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]} 03:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

::::* If you believed this was a BLP, you would already have started a case at WP:AE. If you wish, WP:AE is thataway. Note that DHeyward's comment, which I redacted, was shortly afterwards revdeled. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

::: Another prediction: It's Monday. Lawyers don't work weekends. Other sources are trying to figure out what they can run with. It has every element of titillation these outlets love. We had a high risk RS go first, WaPo is low risk, please anticipate the flow as other news outlets vet the flow of information, ask for quotes, denial or affirmation and go through their news cycle. Lawyers, not facts, are the barriers here and we should not rush to be bleeding edge. Think of what we know from Rapp herself: second job, not safe, etc. Nintendo didn't release any of it. Turn on your brain and realize this doesn't end well. Nintendo didn't disassociate itself from the CP aspect for no reason (indeed, it would have been legally okay on those reasons alone). Both acknowledge it was a second job. Doxing is not new but this information was known prior to any public revelation. Nintendo legal didn't create a shitstorm without facts. Anyone involved in Big Corporate investigations knows how this works and it isn't pretty for Rapp. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 04:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)