Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ZuXer;47187643]Is Wu's patreon still up? Didn't they promise that they will remove it, due to the page breaking the new rules or something?[/QUOTE]
Wu's Patreon is still alive because she showed actual progress on the PC port. It was originally going to be shut down because she wasn't doing anything.
So this just happened to me:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/q3ymus4.png[/img]
[URL="https://twitter.com/Dekashoko/status/569213077020905472/photo/1"]this is the context[/URL]
I don't see what's wrong with using Anita Sarkeesian's tweet on Wikipedia. It's in a paragraph about the SVU episode and how a character is modelled after her. The quality of the source doesn't matter when you're writing about the source itself.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47188035]I don't see what's wrong with using Anita Sarkeesian's tweet on Wikipedia. It's in a paragraph about the SVU episode and how a character is modelled after her. The quality of the source doesn't matter when you're writing about the source itself.[/QUOTE]
They aren't directly quoting her, they are using it as a source of information without telling people it's a tweet. In this sense, she can literally tweet anything and it can be considered reliable/important (see earlier post) information to make a subject about.
If it was just a quote, it wouldn't be a big deal. An example of why this is bad:
Tweet :
The x are [I]losers[/I]
Wikipedia:
The x are losers.
Counter-tweet :
The x aren't losers.
1- Wikipedia:
The x are losers but some people disagree with that statement.
2- Wikipedia
"The counter-tweet is from somebody unreliable, the original edit stays."
What's reliable / isn't has been a controversy on wikipedia, it [I]used [/I]to be "If some people disagree then put that in the article." But now they aren't even allowing that, and sourcing social media can just make this 1000x worse - they can claim anything and nobody can stop them until it's too late.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47188035]I don't see what's wrong with using Anita Sarkeesian's tweet on Wikipedia. It's in a paragraph about the SVU episode and how a character is modelled after her. The quality of the source doesn't matter when you're writing about the source itself.[/QUOTE]
Because it's a 1st hand source being used for a biography article. They prevented the article on Sommers from calling her a feminist since the only source was her own books.
[QUOTE=finbe;47188100]Because it's a 1st hand source being used for a biography article. They prevented the article on Sommers from calling her a feminist since the only source was her own books.[/QUOTE]
And this, they can cherry pick what they want and it's become more like a newspaper then a neutral source of information - seems like my highschool teachers were right.
However, as I said, wikipedia has a nature of fixing itself. It takes a very long while but eventually when the political pushers are gone the article is slowly edited back to a neutral state by people who weren't very much affected by the situtation. Unfortunately, as we can see from this event, it's too late and the misinformation has been spread by the time that [I]does [/I]happen.
Tl;dr from this whole thing, never trust Wikipedia on recent events / people. It's almost always biased, and in some cases to the extreme.
If I wanted too, I have a whole list of people who do this type of thing and have been politically pushing stuff on Wikipedia for years, from Scientology, science to feminism - they use the very same tactics we see today and don't give up until the damage is done. Since Wikipedia isn't competing with anybody and it's very open nature, it's an easy target for people like that who push this kind of thing. It's unfortunate because it's the first place people will look for info; and in many cases will stick to what Wikipedia says about the topic without looking at any other information. Wikipedia is a normally very left-wing and internet-friendly place - however with the changing internet demographic, were going to see a lot of Wikipedia's flaws much faster then before. This situation probably good proof to what I have been saying.
[editline]a[/editline]
In a response to the guy who said your cowards for not trying to do something or whatever - You ever tried to go onto a well-off community and radically change their opinion? You can't. You can try - you won't do it. These people have hard-ons for their opinion. They are ex-bloggers and self-researchers with no credentials then their own the majority of the time. On Wikipedia this is amplified - because they ban "SPA's" - otherwords they censor opinion if you haven't been a long term member - so it's up for somebody who has been there a long time to call it out. If they don't? Whelp. Arbitration, and then, usually the good people will strike out because the bad people will just use meat-puppet accounts. They are impossible to detect. Of course wikipedia will just say "Well if you have a problem make a long term account!" Well you tried to on a subject you were passionate about - can't do that now can we?
[IMG]https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10941429_792547790830890_9069915222277451816_n.jpg?oh=3a5d984183dab948c71664e8f13bdfbc&oe=55838CED[/IMG]
Wasn't he calling [I]us[/I] basement-dwellers?
"Thanks #gamergate"
What professions have the most psychopaths? The least? TIME has the answer :
[IMG]http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/psychopath.jpg[/IMG]
[quote]Psychopathy is a personality disorder that has been variously described as characterized by shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, lacking guilt, egocentricity, superficial character, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors such as parasitic lifestyle and criminality.[/quote]
Sounds about right. (6. +)
[QUOTE=Monkah;47188145][IMG]https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10941429_792547790830890_9069915222277451816_n.jpg?oh=3a5d984183dab948c71664e8f13bdfbc&oe=55838CED[/IMG]
Wasn't he calling [I]us[/I] basement-dwellers?[/QUOTE]
You should just ignore moviebob, he's the most blatant neckbeard pseudo-intellectual, known for delightful insights such as claiming Halo is racist because the covenant are a collection of different races, but conveniently ignores how they're slave races because "lol no one plays halo for the story." Oh also they're kinda trying to kill humanity, but who cares right?
I don't understand people who look for deeper meanings in things that don't want you to look for the deeper meaning - it's like they want only kid's shows with obvious good moral endings in games form. Sorry, the rest of us are actually still adults and [I]aren't[/I] influenced by fictional things that aren't even there. Or at the most, unintentional.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;47188198]sudo-intellectual[/QUOTE]
Ugh, you mean he's a Linux fanboy too?
I think he meant pseudo :v:
[editline]a[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47187116]If you're afraid to try or put in the effort, then why bother at all? Why are any of us bothering with this? If adversity is enough to stop it, what hope is there?[/QUOTE]
Wikipedia is slowly killing itself - it's already disallowed as a source anywhere academic and for good reason. As soon as the internet becomes more diverse and less left-wing (That label won't be possible to use soon.) Wikipedia will fail. We aren't afraid of putting in effort, it's just far better spent elsewhere. Let people who know Wikipedia work with it - people who have no idea how it works will just worsen the situation.
Also, the majority of people who actually care about what gamergate will do to them as a developer or somebody who works in games is going to go beyond Wikipedia to look for information - social bloggers and advocates will only care about the surface since that's what gets [I]them[/I] paid at the end of the day - or what they have been brainwashed (usually through e-celebs or narcissism) to believe in. Consumers can go either way, since both sides want "better games."
sudo service bobchipman stop
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47188226]I think he meant pseudo :v:[/QUOTE]
I don't know why but I always make that mistake, I blame Sudowoodo.
hotwheel streem in 20 min
[url]http://www.hitbox.tv/8chan[/url]
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47186738]Wikipedia is using [I]tweets[/I] by Anita as sources to gamergate now.
[URL]http://i.imgur.com/P1c4R8r.jpg[/URL]
Just remember though, anything else is unreliable.
Fucking cunts, somebody needs to control this. What makes her any more reliable then any other dickwads tweets? ([I]This is related to not directly quoting a person but rather using the quote as a source for different information!![/I])
Up until this point wikipedia has never accepted any form of social media post as an acceptable source - now suddenly it is. The fact they have to bend rules to make this article acceptable anymore is utterly ridiculous and shows that nothing happened to improve the article.[/QUOTE]
I actually think that the inclusion of that source is fair game, since it only is used to [U]verify the quote of a statement FemFreq made regarding to it[/U] (which is without a doubt relevant to coverage about that episode).
Obviously if the cite-noted sentence wasn't reporting on her opinion but [I]repeating it as fact[/I], [I]then[/I] using the tweet as source would be a huge issue.
It's really silly to think there's a problem here in this particular case.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;47189316]I actually think that the inclusion of that source is fair game, since it only is used to [U]verify the quote of a statement FemFreq[/U] (which is without a doubt relevant to coverage about that episode) made regarding to it.
Obviously if the cite-noted sentence wasn't reporting on her opinion but [I]repeating it as fact[/I], [I]then[/I] using the tweet as source would be a huge issue.
It's really silly to think there's a problem here in this particular case.[/QUOTE]
Further down then that, they use the tweet not as a quote but a source. Read the rest of my posts!!
P.S old RvB thing. Hilariously still relevant. (1:00 onwards)
[video=youtube;T5aUvk86XiA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5aUvk86XiA[/video]
[QUOTE=Tamschi;47189316]I actually think that the inclusion of that source is fair game, since it only is used to [U]verify the quote of a statement FemFreq[/U] (which is without a doubt relevant to coverage about that episode) made regarding to it.
Obviously if the cite-noted sentence wasn't reporting on her opinion but [I]repeating it as fact[/I], [I]then[/I] using the tweet as source would be a huge issue.
It's really silly to think there's a problem here in this particular case.[/QUOTE]
i'd say the problem is that if it were anyone else who was getting quoted from a tweet it wouldn't be allowed
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47189330]i'd say the problem is that if it were anyone else who was getting quoted from a tweet it wouldn't be allowed[/QUOTE]
This is true as well - it continually shows that Wikipedia is quickly becoming a left-wing newspaper on political subjects more then an encyclopedia.
Even though the majority of us fit under a left wing definition here, we disagree with them a lot.. I think were going to need a new wing.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47189330]i'd say the problem is that if it were anyone else who was getting quoted from a tweet it wouldn't be allowed[/QUOTE]
But that distinction is completely fine (if they also allow quotes from Wu and Quinn).
They all have relevance to the episode due to being represented by a really blatant stand-in.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;47189357]But that distinction is completely fine (if they also allow quotes from Wu and Quinn).
They all have relevance to the episode due to being represented by a really blatant stand-in.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand "tweet as source" - meaning they basically decided that tweets are allowed as long as they are considered reliable - allow me to show you the difference. In this particular case they use the tweet not only as a quote but a source as well. Since the rules on Wikipedia are "ehh" on that case, they are going to abuse it now that they accidentally found out.
[1] going to tweet. (Random situation, not related to actual article.)
Tweet as a quote / reference -
X said about the episode "It sucks"[1] and continued....
Tweet as a source :
The episode sucks.[1]
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47189340]This is true as well - it continually shows that Wikipedia is quickly becoming a left-wing [B]newspaper on political subjects more then an encyclopedia[/B].
Even though the majority of us fit under a left wing definition here, we disagree with them a lot.. I think were going to need a new wing.[/QUOTE][emphasis mine]
Right, on that part I very much agree.
As soon as it starts recounting events (outside of what's necessary to understand the gist of an issue), there's definitely something going very wrong for an encyclopaedia.
[editline]22nd February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47189367]I don't think you understand "tweet as source" - meaning they basically decided that tweets are allowed as long as they are considered reliable - allow me to show you the difference. In this particular case they use the tweet not only as a quote but a source as well. Since the rules on Wikipedia are "ehh" on that case, they are going to abuse it now that they accidentally found out.
[1] going to tweet.
Tweet as a quote / reference -
X said about the episode "It sucks"[1] and continued....
Tweet as a source :
The episode sucks.[1][/QUOTE]
Right, but where's the example of the latter?
In the screenshot you mentioned there's no such passage.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;47189368]
Right, but where's the example of the latter?
In the screenshot you mentioned there's no such passage.[/QUOTE]
It's outside the screenshot, it was off Kotakuinaction and I checked it out myself. It's 3:00 am so I'll compose a screenshot later if you need it - unless it's been reverted, it most recently linked to multiple passages in the article.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;47189368][emphasis mine]
Right, on that part I very much agree.
As soon as it starts recounting events (outside of what's necessary to understand the gist of an issue), there's definitely something going very wrong for an encyclopaedia.[/QUOTE]
Which is very much why the Gamergate article makes zero to no sense - it shows peoples opinion over fact, and on many feminist articles on Wikipedia this is becoming a very fast trend - only 2 years ago the way to fuck with other editors was to post disputable content, but now it seems to be flooding with opinion and blogs over factual ones under the guise of reliability and that of an experts - when in reality it's people barely knowledgeable about the subject who probably don't even care about it.
Alright bed now.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47189382]It's outside the screenshot, it was off Kotakuinaction and I checked it out myself. It's 3:00 am so I'll compose a screenshot later if you need it - unless it's been reverted, it most recently linked to multiple passages in the article.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, this clears it up a bit more.
Since it's a sane time here at the moment I'll try to find the necessary verification and post it here in a bit.
[editline]22nd February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tamschi;47189389]Thanks, this clears it up a bit more.
Since it's a sane time here at the moment I'll try to find the necessary verification and post it here in a bit.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://archive.today/Jzd7h"]The Reddit post contains no references in that regard[/URL], so far.
[URL="https://archive.today/OU0Yn#selection-4969.1-4969.178"]The tweet in question appears to be only used for the specific statement[/URL], which has been corrected to read [quote]Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency Twitter account called the episode "sickening" and stated, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."[/quote].
I really don't think there was an issue here beyond [URL="https://archive.today/v7liN#selection-5827.0-5853.30"]what's outlined by SuperHamster[/URL].
If there was it was caught quickly enough and removed from the article.
Somehow, GamerGhazi has managed to do the mental gymnastics to blame the death threats on Gamergaters... despite the threats being directed [I]to[/I] GamerGate in the first place.
It really is a fucking cult.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47189505]Somehow, GamerGhazi has managed to do the mental gymnastics to blame the death threats on Gamergaters... despite the threats being directed [I]to[/I] GamerGate in the first place.
It really is a fucking cult.[/QUOTE]
What's their angle? Schizophrenia?
Because that's the only way that could remotely make sense.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47188093]They aren't directly quoting her, they are using it as a source of information without telling people it's a tweet. In this sense, she can literally tweet anything and it can be considered reliable/important (see earlier post) information to make a subject about.
If it was just a quote, it wouldn't be a big deal. An example of why this is bad:
Tweet :
The x are [I]losers[/I]
Wikipedia:
The x are losers.
Counter-tweet :
The x aren't losers.
1- Wikipedia:
The x are losers but some people disagree with that statement.
2- Wikipedia
"The counter-tweet is from somebody unreliable, the original edit stays."
What's reliable / isn't has been a controversy on wikipedia, it [I]used [/I]to be "If some people disagree then put that in the article." But now they aren't even allowing that, and sourcing social media can just make this 1000x worse - they can claim anything and nobody can stop them until it's too late.[/QUOTE]
Are we talking about the same article? This is what's on the "Gamergate Controversy" page:
[QUOTE]"Intimidation Game", an episode of the American crime drama series Law & Order: SVU, first broadcast on February 11, 2015, portrays a fictionalized version of the Gamergate controversy, including a character modeled after Sarkeesian and based on multiple women involved in the controversy.[171][172][173][174] Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency Twitter account called the episode "sickening" and stated, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."[175][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47188190]What professions have the most psychopaths? The least? TIME has the answer :
[IMG]http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/psychopath.jpg[/IMG]
Sounds about right. (6. +)[/QUOTE]
I find it funny nurse is least number 2 because the top three female serial killers in the world were nurses.
Maybe they were the ONLY nurse serial killers.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47189505]Somehow, GamerGhazi has managed to do the mental gymnastics to blame the death threats on Gamergaters... despite the threats being directed [I]to[/I] GamerGate in the first place.
It really is a fucking cult.[/QUOTE]
You mean [url]https://archive.today/POwPy[/url]? Because that's not that and that's all I could find on the fist page.
It's pretty funny how deserted the whole subreddit is now ([URL="https://archive.today/kV7TD"]judging by the average upvote count[/URL]).
[URL="https://archive.today/IVk9A"]Even if you ignore the [DRAMA] threads KiA is at least about four times more active.[/URL]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.