Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mattk50;46999422]they ban people without these extended fucking votes for bs reasons all the time. The very fact they're putting this to a vote like this where others were banned without receiving a chance is absurd.
Burn wikipedia to the ground, fork it, etc.[/QUOTE]
They very rarely ban people unless they deserved it, and under most circumstances they are unbanned in my experience.
Administrators haven't done much wrong except RedPenOfDoom.
Otherwise I would like a source to these claims.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46999086]A union isn't a single leader it's a multitude of ones voted in, and they don't issue commands they issue statements. It's a voice who speaks for everyone not a leader.
People seem to think that they tell people what to do - that isn't the case, at all.[/QUOTE]
Would you mind linking to or quoting what exactly you proposed?
It's not going to work unless you make it extremely easy to jump in and out on a per-public-statement basis and can lead by example.
You'll also have to have something very substantial before you'll be able to make anyone join: What you're trying to do is create a "crowdfunded" lobbying organization.
That's essentially like running a Kickstater but harder, so you'll have to have something extremely professional before people will [U]lend you their names to speak for them[/U], since that requires immense amounts of trust.
Take [URL="http://www.avaaz.org/en/"]Avaaz[/URL] for example, they do pretty much everything you'd have to do to have a chance of success. (They operate in a far less union-hostile environment than gamers are.)
You'll need:
- A professional web presence. It has to be basically completely ready for you to start.
- Tell people [U]exactly[/U] what you're going to say in their name up-front.
- Marketing skills to pull people in (actually easier in this case since you don't have to bullshit or drama (as much)).
- Drop everything else to print out those signatures and show up on people's doorstops with them, to make you hard to ignore or be able to convincingly shame them if they still do.
- A bit of charisma, since you will have to put yourself out there and stand for these things with your name and likeness to convince anyone of anything. That's just how IRL politics works, it's unfortunately a lot about public image and perceived authority.
You'd also have to keep people engaged, which is why you'd have to very carefully but aggressively market to your own user base (as Avaaz is doing, they basically dry-run everything they ask people to sign or donate to to avoid alienating anyone).
Basically what [I]might[/I] work is an extremely well done petition site.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46999428]They very rarely ban people unless they deserved it, and under most circumstances they are unbanned in my experience.
Administrators haven't done much wrong except RedPenOfDoom.
Otherwise I would like a source to these claims.[/QUOTE]
they bulk banned people in the gamergate article just because ryulong unilaterally declared them to be "single purpose editors" which is a bs idea in itself.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46999206]I think I only got like 1 or 2 people interested here, there needs to be a way to display the message as "Were not looking to retag gamergate" - people are turned off by the word "leader" in any form.[/QUOTE]
You really can't do that that way. It's impossible to get support if you try to speak for "[all of] Gamergate" since that's an idea almost all in it are fundamentally opposed to. See #NotYourShield etc.
What you could do is make a platform [I]that allows people to speak for themselves[/I] and [I]then collects their voices into a concerned effort[/I] to get the attention of ignorant people.
It's not going to work without significant financial investment, since you'll need to do stuff offline to make a difference too.
(At the very least you'd have expensive shipping costs for sending fully copies of petitions with signatures to news outlets.)
[QUOTE=Tamschi;46999437]Would you mind linking to or quoting what exactly you proposed?
It's not going to work unless you make it extremely easy to jump in and out on a per-public-statement basis and can lead by example.
You'll also have to have something very substantial before you'll be able to make anyone join: What you're trying to do is create a "crowdfunded" lobbying organization.
That's essentially like running a Kickstater but harder, so you'll have to have something extremely professional before people will [U]lend you their names to speak for them[/U], since that requires immense amounts of trust.
Take [URL="http://www.avaaz.org/en/"]Avaaz[/URL] for example, they do pretty much everything you'd have to do to have a chance of success. (They operate in a far less union-hostile environment than gamers are.)
You'll need:
- A professional web presence. It has to be basically completely ready for you to start.
- Tell people [U]exactly[/U] what you're going to say in their name up-front.
- Marketing skills to pull people in (actually easier in this case since you don't have to bullshit or drama (as much)).
- Drop everything else to print out those signatures and show up on people's doorstops with them, to make you hard to ignore or be able to convincingly shame them if they still do.
- A bit of charisma, since you will have to put yourself out there and stand for these things with your name and likeness to convince anyone of anything. That's just how IRL politics works, it's unfortunately a lot about public image and perceived authority.
You'd also have to keep people engaged, which is why you'd have to very carefully but aggressively market to your own user base (as Avaaz is doing, they basically dry-run everything they ask people to sign or donate to to avoid alienating anyone).
Basically what [I]might[/I] work is an extremely well done petition site.[/QUOTE]
Interesting proposal, can't say I agree with all the points, (which I might explain later) but I have to sleep! Keep discussing this.
[editline]24th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tamschi;46999460]You really can't do that that way. It's impossible to get support if you try to speak for "[all of] Gamergate" since that's an idea almost all in it are fundamentally opposed to. See #NotYourShield etc.
What you could do is make a platform [I]that allows people to speak for themselves[/I] and [I]then collects their voices into a concerned effort[/I] to get the attention of ignorant people.
It's not going to work without significant financial investment, since you'll need to do stuff offline to make a difference too.
(At the very least you'd have expensive shipping costs for sending fully copies of petitions with signatures to news outlets.)[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what a union is.
You literally vote for somebody to discuss, debate, bring up other users concerns and collect them, vote on all the rest of the stuff and etc, really have to get going now but it's not quite what you think!
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46999420]Again, the union takes control of nothing. It won't tell anybody to do anything but vote on what they are going to say. It's quite literally "This is what we generally believe in and we condemn." Gamergate.me is nice, but people argue it written by a "propaganda" minister (yeah really.)
The more people that join it the more that voice is legitimate and taken seriously.[/QUOTE]
You're blatantly contradicting yourself by now. (People taking part in discussions as delegates/taking control of nothing.)
To me it's pretty obvious why [I]you[/I] won't be able to do it, I think. [editline]edit[/editline] I think I put this slightly to harsh, but I don't think I'm entirely incorrect.
(This is just an observation though, I'm not saying your approach is inherently bad. It's just inherently futile in regards to Gamergate.)
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46999420]Again, the union takes control of nothing. It won't tell anybody to do anything but vote on what they are going to say. It's quite literally "This is what we generally believe in and we condemn." Gamergate.me is nice, but people argue it written by a "propaganda" minister (yeah really.)
The more people that join it the more that voice is legitimate and taken seriously.[/QUOTE]
I'm more accustomed to the type of unions that have more of a hierarchy. Maybe it's different in the states then it is in canada, I know unions are different in china.
tonight on gamergate TMZ
frank wu (brianna wu's husband) has a ex wife who wrote a zoepost-esque message about him
[url]http://theralphretort.com/giant-spacekats-frank-wu-under-fire-as-ex-wife-details-domestic-violence-0124015/[/url]
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46999461]Interesting proposal, can't say I agree with all the points, (which I might explain later) but I have to sleep! Keep discussing this.
[/QUOTE]
It think it's mostly a meritocracy/distrust issue. If you want to have people follow you you need to prove you're capable and (somewhat) trustworthy.
I think people mostly listen to Yiannopoulos because he's good at his job, not because they genuinely like him as a person for example.
Same with Jenni Bharaj, [URL="http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/848571-gamergate"]she's scarily good at interviews and deflecting destructive questions in the most constructive way possible[/URL].
[QUOTE]This is exactly what a union is.
You literally vote for somebody to discuss, debate, bring up other users concerns and collect them, vote on all the rest of the stuff and etc, really have to get going now but it's not quite what you think![/QUOTE]
Hm... I think I see your point but it's going to be extremely difficult to convince many people of that.
You need to explain it very clearly and make clear you only commit to things that were definitely voted on.
You also can't even imply or publicly intend to represent close to all of Gamergate without that actually being provably the case already, or you'll get slammed into oblivion for it.
One marketing mistake and the idea is basically done for for a certain initiator.
Looks like Gawker is none too happy about what went down with Wikipedia earlier today. [URL="http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331/+cushac"]Enjoy the salt.[/URL]
[url=https://archive.today/Iu19h]Archived version[/url] for those wanting to avoid Gawker itself.
I love how every article about the decision tries to portray the Arbitration Committee as some shadow court of clandestine overlords trying to destroy gallant feminists.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46999615]I love how every article about the decision tries to portray the Arbitration Committee as some shadow court of clandestine overlords trying to destroy gallant feminists.[/QUOTE]
if jimbo wales comes out and says "yes the arbcom made the right decision, with all the evidence presented those banned were actively working to keep the article unfairly biased" then i hope he's got a backup speech to defend himself from an onslaught of misogyny cries
Any bets that after this, we're going to see Gawker, Brianna Wu, and Josh all talking about how Wikipedia needs to go away?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46999706]Any bets that after this, we're going to see Gawker, Brianna Wu, and Josh all talking about how Wikipedia needs to go away?[/QUOTE]
wikpedia is dead, jimbo needs to say something so we can put it out of context if it doesn't match exactly what we want him to say.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46999615]I love how every article about the decision tries to portray the Arbitration Committee as some shadow court of clandestine overlords trying to destroy gallant feminists.[/QUOTE]
The funniest part of all of this is that they just arent satisfied with the wiki article as is despite how ridiculously biased it is. And they aren't even permabanning ryulong as they obviously should be. Like, what more do they want from wikipedia jesus christ talk about a good way to make more enemies.
[QUOTE=Wii60;46999479]tonight on gamergate TMZ
frank wu (brianna wu's husband) has a ex wife who wrote a zoepost-esque message about him
[url]http://theralphretort.com/giant-spacekats-frank-wu-under-fire-as-ex-wife-details-domestic-violence-0124015/[/url][/QUOTE]
They both called each other a liar and an abuser, so at this point there's nothing to be certain of.
I ask however what's these people's significance to us?
Ian miles "banana" cheong is trying really hard to make totalbiscuit look bad by digging up 8 year old posts:
[url]https://archive.today/qz4hS[/url]
i mean, [URL="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8ACzX5CAAA7u2R.jpg:large"]Ian totally hasn't said something stupid in the past before right?[/URL]
[QUOTE=Wii60;47000233]Ian miles "banana" cheong is trying really hard to make totalbiscuit look bad by digging up 8 year old posts:
[url]https://archive.today/qz4hS[/url]
i mean, [URL="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8ACzX5CAAA7u2R.jpg:large"]Ian totally hasn't said something stupid in the past before right?[/URL][/QUOTE]
Normally I don't condone that kind of stuff, but I think it's fine to make an argument moot by attaching evidence of hypocrisy :v:
Same reason why I think it would be not a bad idea to attach the post by Wu's ex to his allegations when they pop up somewhere. (With a brief mention that there's no evidence in either direction and that you have no idea who is right.)
The issue would instantly be so muddled that most people won't take action at all.
[QUOTE=Wii60;47000233]Ian miles "banana" cheong is trying really hard to make totalbiscuit look bad by digging up 8 year old posts:
[url]https://archive.today/qz4hS[/url]
i mean, [URL="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8ACzX5CAAA7u2R.jpg:large"]Ian totally hasn't said something stupid in the past before right?[/URL][/QUOTE]
Realistically speaking, IQ is utter bullshit.
It has no sort of bearing on your intelligence, what-so-ever and using it for such reasoning is absolutely retarded.
Wikipedia is becoming self aware
[img]http://i.imgur.com/NWe7oDV.png[/img]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents[/url]
[QUOTE=Wii60;47000233]Ian miles "banana" cheong is trying really hard to make totalbiscuit look bad by digging up 8 year old posts:
[url]https://archive.today/qz4hS[/url]
i mean, [URL="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8ACzX5CAAA7u2R.jpg:large"]Ian totally hasn't said something stupid in the past before right?[/URL][/QUOTE]
You know you're crazy when even the white supremacists are saying "What the fuck are you even talking about"
[editline]24th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;47000551]Wikipedia is becoming self aware
[img]http://i.imgur.com/NWe7oDV.png[/img]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents[/url][/QUOTE]
Literally one of the biggest shitstorms in Wikipedia's history just because bias is now neutrality and neutrality is terrorism.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;47000541]Meanwhile it seems NorthBySouthBaranof has been contacting arbitrators "[URL="https://archive.today/vjSlu#selection-567.0-567.26"]Even as you vote, Roger[/URL] (a title that says intimidation to me)" to swing opinions.[/QUOTE]
Continuously repeats "we're helping people here, why won't you let us push our agenda?" ad nauseam, does this guy even know what an encyclopedia is supposed to be?
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;47000551]Wikipedia is becoming self aware
[img]http://i.imgur.com/NWe7oDV.png[/img]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents[/url][/QUOTE]
Accuracy? HAH, go fuck yourself Chillum, remember all the BS in the whole Wikipedia GG debacle where truth and accuracy crumbles under the weight of who has the most "sources" even if those sources are of a dubious nature.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46998230][URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcJbM878tO0&t=1m30s[/URL]
Well.. I was looking for an excuse to unsubscribe anyways, they were really getting stale.
Also, since it's suzy who said it first the comments say that people only don't like grumps now because she opened her mouth!! fuck off
[editline]a[/editline]
I'll admit I got interested and looked at some youtubers comments, went a bit deeper and looked at their profiles.
This one guy who wrote this huge thing about how it's a massive hate movement - Subscribed only to gamegrumps and Totalbiscut.
Shit, if any more of my favorite YouTube pack up and leave, I will never stop until my name, and everybody elses name is cleared.
People don't deserve this - specially on non-political entertainment channels. I really - really - despise when anybody calls out any group on a show they are supposed to be making people laugh at, just to tell people that they seriously hate them. It's horrible.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://i.imgur.com/ItHSI9V.png"]This[/URL] and [URL="https://docs.google.com/document/d/151sBr5YzWVWepiElLKpO7KkVt48ztOGqbTknFclaKPI/edit"]this[/URL] might interest you if you're curious as to why jon left, the first one may seem a bit sketchy at first, but due to the awkward twitter non-denial, you can take it as pretty much confirmed. The second link is just an agregate of everything that was discovered, including the first link. The only thing missing is that they do not confirm if Polaris has an NDA on trash talking other members, but it's common knowledge at this point that they do.
While I agree with the idea that Wikipedia needs to be forked on the grounds that real competition is healthy competition, the ArbCom process and it's outcomes have not been totally dismal in my eyes.
Judicially I've seen a great amount of consistency and restraint in the case. There have been issues with agenda or relation that are clearly visible (particularly the constant shielding of Ryulong) but there have also been cases of clear adherence to the letter of their own law even at a time when they were changing the seats on the court.
In terms of ground work, foundation and ideals, Wikipedia as an institution has done an amazing job. The fact that I can pick up unimaginably obscure information and read it with a reasonable bet at it's reliability is astounding to the point of Sci-Fi witchcraft.
However, the issues with Wikipedia are real. I wish Wikipedia could get over itself and work on some reforms for the health of what I see as an iconic internet figure. However the issues that plague it are the sort of thing that mean that won't happen. Just to rattle some off; an incestuous bureaucracy, faux-meritocratic guidelines that would make soviets blush, and a further factionalizing inward pointing mindset. Those are going to prevent that.
I think it's inevitable that the [I]Free[/I] Encyclopedia will just become the Free Encyclopedia.
The problem is though, I don't think anyone else can do what Wikipedia can do or has done. At least without becoming Wikipedia.
There are reasons for why Wikipedia is as it is. There are reasons why the "foremost expert in the field" can't make a simple edit to an article they have expert knowledge of, and why an Author can't make an edit to correct a factual misunderstanding of [I]their own book.[/I] Wikipedia didn't get where it is by being chaotic stupid, in fact it got there by being lawful smart.
That [I]is[/I] the problem though. Any Free Encyclopedia project will always buckle under the weight of either having too much or too little curation. Wikipedia's gone too far into too much, and when I head outward I can easily find examples of too little by just looking for the net's current trove of freestanding wikis. Even the bare minimum standard of text and type gets abused on some aspirant wikis.
If I had my choice, I'd say campaign for the improvement of Wikipedia, not for the christening of a new one. As it stands though I freely admit that the Fork is the right choice.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;47000860]Accuracy? HAH, go fuck yourself Chillum, remember all the BS in the whole Wikipedia GG debacle where truth and accuracy crumbles under the weight of who has the most "sources" even if those sources are of a dubious nature.[/QUOTE]
I thought calton was the agg in this. He says the sanctions (including ones against ryulong) are bs.
I read chillum's post as "As you can see, news outlets can't always be trusted.", a stab about how anti-gg news outlets are thanks to 0 research.
[QUOTE=wewt!;47000872][URL="http://i.imgur.com/ItHSI9V.png"]This[/URL] and [URL="https://docs.google.com/document/d/151sBr5YzWVWepiElLKpO7KkVt48ztOGqbTknFclaKPI/edit"]this[/URL] might interest you if you're curious as to why jon left, the first one may seem a bit sketchy at first, but due to the awkward twitter non-denial, you can take it as pretty much confirmed. The second link is just an agregate of everything that was discovered, including the first link. The only thing missing is that they do not confirm if Polaris has an NDA on trash talking other members, but it's common knowledge at this point that they do.[/QUOTE]
Can someone refresh me on the whole Arin/Zoe thing? I'm assuming it was right around when the zoepost broke, and Arin was calling Zoe critics harassers.
[QUOTE=DuCT;47001512]Can someone refresh me on the whole Arin/Zoe thing? I'm assuming it was right around when the zoepost broke, and Arin was calling Zoe critics harassers.[/QUOTE]
Arin supports Zoe Quinn/doesn't support Gamergate and relayed such on twitter, that's all. Gamergate is more relevant to the old grumps fans than Arin is to gamergate.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;47000551]Wikipedia is becoming self aware
[img]http://i.imgur.com/NWe7oDV.png[/img]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]
[highlight]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.[/highlight]
[code]It looks like ArbCom's proposed decisions in the "GamerGate" case are getting some media attention (Wikipedia Purged a Group of Feminist Editors Because of Gamergate).
Which seems appropriate, because perusing it, the proposed sanctions look like pure B.S. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The more you are involved in things that are reported on the news the more you realize that accuracy is not the prime directive of journalists. Chillum 04:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[/code]
[highlight]The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.[/highlight][/quote]
Nice.
[editline]edit[/editline] Oh.
The image didn't load for me first time around.
Honestly I think abritration and common wikipedia editors will be affected by that article. I have no doubt they will be offended or angry at it.
[quote]. "Wikipedia tacitly endorses GamerGate by blocking its opponents from editing gender-related articles"[/quote]
I already talked to some people and they are [I]pissed.[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.