Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=Mecha Pirate;46749261]I remember seeing that this was fake on an 8chan thread. No archive page was saved of it (The post). Could anyone care to correct me or assert my suspicious as truth?[/QUOTE] There is no archive.today post of it, so it is not as verifiable as I first thought. OP's post of it on 8chan was his only one in that thread too. What is interesting to note though, is that Ryulong has edited the Revolution 60 page a few hours after that screencap was made. And unsurprisingly, it are the edits that generally praise her game, such as mentioning that it got iMore's GOTY Award. What isn't noted is that iMore is being ran by personal friends of Wu. Another editor pointed that out, only to get a (temporary) IP block for showing Ryulong's possible collusion on the topic. [URL="https://archive.today/zXhkf"]Archive link showing said user tempbanned.[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolution_60&action=history"]Here is the revision log of said page though.[/URL] It is weird that OP didn't archive it, but either it is real or he somehow expected Ryulong to positively edit Revolution 60's page for whatever reason.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46748621][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/sslHZOO.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] when i was researching katherine cross and suddenly someone pointed out that she's in the colbert photo i nearly shat myself [img]http://i.imgur.com/ZLp75aN.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Jordax;46749587]There is no archive.today post of it, so it is not as verifiable as I first thought. OP's post of it on 8chan was his only one in that thread too. What is interesting to note though, is that Ryulong has edited the Revolution 60 page a few hours after that screencap was made. And unsurprisingly, it are the edits that generally praise her game, such as mentioning that it got iMore's GOTY Award. What isn't noted is that iMore is being ran by personal friends of Wu. Another editor pointed that out, only to get a (temporary) IP block for showing Ryulong's possible collusion on the topic. [URL="https://archive.today/zXhkf"]Archive link showing said user tempbanned.[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolution_60&action=history"]Here is the revision log of said page though.[/URL] It is weird that OP didn't archive it, but either it is real or he somehow expected Ryulong to positively edit Revolution 60's page for whatever reason.[/QUOTE] Ryulong is currently doing everything he can before hes inevitably blocked by the system for edit warring, the deadline is anywhere from Nov 1st to 31st. Hes POV pushing and has admitted to doing so. Check out the checklist of requriements to being a POV pusher : [quote]LocalityThey often [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPA"]edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme[/URL]. NeutralityThey attempt [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL"]to water down language[/URL], unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV"]WP:NPOV[/URL], or give [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE"]undue weight[/URL] to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE"]fringe theories[/URL] – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. They frivolously request [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE"]citations[/URL] for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge"]obvious or well known information[/URL]. They argue endlessly about the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV"]neutral-point-of-view policy[/URL] and particularly try to undermine the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEIGHT"]undue weight clause[/URL]. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V"]verifiable[/URL], so it should be in." When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR"]original research[/URL]. EditingThey [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REVERT"]revert war[/URL] over such edits. They may use [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK"]sockpuppets[/URL], or recruit [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEAT"]meat puppets[/URL]. DiscussionsThey repeatedly use the talk page for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOAP"]soapboxing[/URL], and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times. They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view. They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors. They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions. They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument. See [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem"]ad hominem[/URL].[/I] [I]Sources[/I][I]They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS"]reliability[/URL]; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.[/I] [I]They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.[/I] [I]They ignore [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BURDEN"]WP:BURDEN[/URL], insisting attempts be made to find reliable sources for dubious claims before removing them from an article.[/I] [I]When pressed for reliable sources, in lieu of honoring the request they:[/I] [I]- Use a source to verify claims outside its author's expertise. For example, a foreword to an electrician's handbook is used to verify a statement of historical fact.[/I][I]- [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CHERRYPICK"]WP:CHERRYPICK[/URL][/I][I]- Cite non-English language sources no one can read or obscure books no one can find[/quote][/I] [editline]19th December 2014[/editline] From the same essay : [quote]Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with civil POV pushers. The Arbitration Committee has a mixed record in dealing with such problem users. The arbitration committee has chosen to avoid focusing on content, because admittedly they are not subject experts, and often these issues are complicated enough that knowledge of the topic is necessary to identify pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. (One important reason for this is that oftentimes there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding these topics.)[/quote]

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;46750721]I really don't expect which for him and his friend will happen. They have been doing the same shit for years. Like Ryulong has been blocked 17 times for edit warring and most last not more than single hours to one day. NorthBySouthBaranof 4, which fits all the checks above and now edits for [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Gamergate_controversy"]Ryulong[/URL].[/QUOTE] When I was in school, all my teachers told me to NEVER cite wikipedia as a source. Now I know why. :v:

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;46750872]When I was in school, all my teachers told me to NEVER cite wikipedia as a source. Now I know why. :v:[/QUOTE] The profs told us that Wikipedia is a good place to find sources for material... and not much else. I found it a bit ridiculous at the time but a few years later I'm looking at WP wondering if it was always this bad. I assume that it has been in its current state for some time to get as bad as it has.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;46751302]The profs told us that Wikipedia is a good place to find sources for material... and not much else. I found it a bit ridiculous at the time but a few years later I'm looking at WP wondering if it was always this bad. I assume that it has been in its current state for some time to get as bad as it has.[/QUOTE] Wikipedia isn't "tainted" or any bullshit like that. This happens to almost every single page to do with a hot-topic social issue. People edit-war the fuck out of the page for months on end, WP administration gets involved, not much changes, admin gets involved again, everybody goes home worse off. It's still a pretty trustworthy source for material that can be sourced accurately and has a lot of peer reviewed literature, but social issues usually have no peer reviewed stuff for years.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46751624]Wikipedia isn't "tainted" or any bullshit like that. This happens to almost every single page to do with a hot-topic social issue. People edit-war the fuck out of the page for months on end, WP administration gets involved, not much changes, admin gets involved again, everybody goes home worse off. It's still a pretty trustworthy source for material that can be sourced accurately and has a lot of peer reviewed literature, but social issues usually have no peer reviewed stuff for years.[/QUOTE] I've only ever used it as a base to judge what is common knowledge so I know what to source and what not to source.

The point is, no one has actual objective knowledge of present events. Too much bias. Only time leads to somewhat acceptable objectivity - this is true not only for wikipedia, but for everything.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46751638]I've only ever used it as a base to judge what is common knowledge so I know what to source and what not to source.[/QUOTE] Ahh yeah this to. Common knowledge is kinda hard to pin down if it's for a certain subject. Wikipedia is pretty good at this. But basically my post was more in the vein of; stop calling any sites that have interacted with the "SJWs" tainted or whatever. There is always a good chance that it's a momentary "what the fuck should we do?" thing. This Wikipedia thing will blow over when more solid stuff comes to light (criminal investigations are still ongoing right?)

As expected, the ralphretort was taken down. For somebody who preaches loudly that "SJW's will use anything" he should have seen it coming. P.S Ryulong is using other users to edit for him, as I predicted a couple pages ago : [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Gamergate_controversy[/URL] [quote]The mere presence of my name on the article or its talk page will cause a riot online, even if it's just making a minor correction, so could you fix the fact that there's nothing bolded in the article's lede?—[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryulong"][COLOR=blue]Ryūlóng[/COLOR][/URL] ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryulong"][COLOR=Gold]琉竜[/COLOR][/URL]) 06:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[/quote] [editline]19th December 2014[/editline] Can't fix the dumb quote [editline]19th December 2014[/editline] Although I don't like posting about feminists - but the people who were "harrassed" are now posting new patreons specifically saying "We were harassed please give us money so we can make videogames again" I'm starting to get suspicious myself, two of them are earning thousands of dollars a month.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46751825]Ahh yeah this to. Common knowledge is kinda hard to pin down if it's for a certain subject. Wikipedia is pretty good at this. But basically my post was more in the vein of; stop calling any sites that have interacted with the "SJWs" tainted or whatever. There is always a good chance that it's a momentary "what the fuck should we do?" thing. This Wikipedia thing will blow over when more solid stuff comes to light (criminal investigations are still ongoing right?)[/QUOTE] I don't think sites are tainted by posers running around claiming to be social justice advocates, but their ability effect change by just being loud makes them very dangerous on more organized sites(twitter/facebook/Wikipedia). Loose or barely organied sites(#chan/Tumblr/Reddit) tend to be harder to effect change because the resistance is stronger due to more user input on the site in general.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46751923]Although I don't like posting about feminists - but the people who were "harrassed" are now posting new patreons specifically saying "We were harassed please give us money so we can make videogames again" I'm starting to get suspicious myself, two of them are earning thousands of dollars a month.[/QUOTE] It's important to complain about shady things being done, even if the people who do it normally have a positive impact. Some kinds on injustice can be "cancelled out", but it would still be better if they didn't happen in the first place.

You know that moment when all the doubts about what you're fighting for go away in an instant? I've had a discussion with my mother about feminism today, cause I thought it might interesting to hear from someone who's from a different generation, and had to work hard to get where she is today. She's 52, she's an architect, she's not an internet person, she doesn't care about videogames (she's not too happy about me playing violent games in fact, but she never tried to stop me from doing what I like) and she has no idea SJW are a thing So we're talking about characters in videogames, that games are being criticized because they are idealized, which makes them sexist. She says she wishes that characters looked more real, I say that I agree but it's fiction after all. She replies: "Exactly, they (radfems/SJW) can't distiguish fiction from reality. They're stuck in their own fantasy world and that's why you always see them complain about stupid things- they never had to experience the real problems women used to have, and still do in some countries." ((I tell her that the whole affair is important to me as a developer, because they have been trying to start boycotts)) She replies: "They probably don't even buy games, they just see an advert and decide that game is offensive and should be banned, without even having played it". She knows. She fucking knows everything. I'm tempted to have her write up some stuff because this was eye opening for me

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;46750872]When I was in school, all my teachers told me to NEVER cite wikipedia as a source. Now I know why. :v:[/QUOTE] It's because wikipedia is not a source. It's like listing google as a source.

[QUOTE=V12US;46753050]It's because wikipedia is not a source. It's like listing google as a source.[/QUOTE] At first I disagreed with the argument that "because anybody can edit it it's instantly terrible" - I didn't realize until I started editing it years ago just how bad the POV pushing by ""ESTABLISHED"" editors was, and since there's no definite way to prove that, you have a lot of people writing things that aren't necessarily false, but definitely change the tone of any article to be more against popular or unpopular opinion, or in the gamersgate article's position - downright aggressive. I assume back then "established" meant being trustworthy and neutral, today it means sticking around on a single topic for so long nobody can touch you. My argument to them was "Only established people can edit so it can't be bad!" - Until you realize that in every community, established could mean somebody just finding loopholes and being able to stay a long time.

ever want to examine the mental state of the person who created the GG Blocklist?[URL="http://tweetsave.com/blacksteel25/status/546092386699714561"] http://tweetsave.com/blacksteel25/status/546092386699714561[/URL] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pSPExD8.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5QcHPWCcAAvyPj.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5QcIXGCEAELai4.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5QcIawCYAAB359.png[/IMG] [URL]http://www.cesarsway.com/dog-care/dog-grooming/Dyeing-Your-Dogs-Hair-Is-a-Bad-Idea#ixzz3MOOzEifz[/URL] [QUOTE]Dyeing your dog’s hair is not recommended under any circumstances because it can be physically and psychologically harmful to your dog. The chemicals in the dyes can cause skin irritation, chemical burns, and even nausea and vomiting if ingested. Psychologically, a dog cannot process what has been done because it is an extreme and unnatural process that is out of their control. All dogs already have beautiful coats of hair with colors ranging from white, auburn, tan, black, and everything else between. Why not enjoy their natural beauty? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Wii60;46753628]ever want to examine the mental state of the person who created the GG Blocklist?[URL="http://tweetsave.com/blacksteel25/status/546092386699714561"] http://tweetsave.com/blacksteel25/status/546092386699714561[/URL] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pSPExD8.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5QcHPWCcAAvyPj.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5QcIXGCEAELai4.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5QcIawCYAAB359.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Jesus fucking christ I so want to slap her with an animal abuse charge.

Maybe we should nail her on animal abuse charges and send the proof to the ASPCA or something. She's clearly not capable of caring for a dog if she's doing that.

peta found out [url]https://twitter.com/peta/status/546010972050059264[/url]

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;46753641]Jesus fucking christ I so want to slap her with an animal abuse charge.[/QUOTE] Since this is legit animal abuse and thus illegal in all states, this page would probably be very helpful in possible getting somewhere. [url]http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/tips/cruelty_action.html[/url]

How Zoe Quinn And Margaret Pless Tried Getting Mike Cernovich Killed [url]http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2014/12/margaret-pless-zoe-quinn.html[/url]

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46753681]Since this is legit animal abuse and thus illegal in all states, this page would probably be very helpful in possible getting somewhere. [url]http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/tips/cruelty_action.html[/url][/QUOTE] Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It all depends on what type of dye she used. If she used a non-toxic dye, then its not really a problem. In fact, there are products just for dyeing your pet's fur. If she used something toxic like paint, then it's cruelty/abuse and then someone should step in.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46753738]Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It all depends on what type of dye she used. If she used a non-toxic dye, then its not really a problem. In fact, there are products just for dyeing your pet's fur. If she used something toxic like paint, then it's cruelty/abuse and then someone should step in.[/QUOTE] Still fairly obvious it's not something the dog is comfortable with. Idc if it's not-toxic, you don't have the right to do that. [editline]20th December 2014[/editline] A dog isn't a fucking personal toy to do with as you please, it's a living being with emotions and usually unwavering loyalty.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46753628]ever want to examine the mental state of the person who created the GG Blocklist?[URL="http://tweetsave.com/blacksteel25/status/546092386699714561"] http://tweetsave.com/blacksteel25/status/546092386699714561[/URL] -animal abuse- [URL]http://www.cesarsway.com/dog-care/dog-grooming/Dyeing-Your-Dogs-Hair-Is-a-Bad-Idea#ixzz3MOOzEifz[/URL][/QUOTE] ''Every time I put on paints, It's the same sad look'' NO FUCKING SHIT, YOU FUCKING METH WHALE. How the fuck is anti-GG still supporting this lunatic? Come to think of it, why are most of the bigger anti-GG names so unhinged? I bet if Josef Stalin would resurrect from the dead and the first thing he says is that Gamergaters deserve to be purged and to be worked to death in the gulags, that those lunatics would really follow him for that alone.

[video=youtube;QPHGaK1hsNQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPHGaK1hsNQ[/video]

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;46753770]Still fairly obvious it's not something the dog is comfortable with. Idc if it's not-toxic, you don't have the right to do that. [editline]20th December 2014[/editline] A dog isn't a fucking personal toy to do with as you please, it's a living being with emotions and usually unwavering loyalty.[/QUOTE] I understand where you're coming from, and for the record, I agree. All I'm saying is there is no point in something like that getting blown out of proportion, just to be turned around and used against GG as a "See, all they do is harass women!" thing. It's something that has nothing to do with GG, and honestly, it shouldn't. We shouldn't be in this for ad-hominem.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;46751302]The profs told us that Wikipedia is a good place to find sources for material... and not much else. I found it a bit ridiculous at the time but a few years later I'm looking at WP wondering if it was always this bad. I assume that it has been in its current state for some time to get as bad as it has.[/QUOTE] For some pages, yes; it's always been this bad, and it's also been a "like-minded liker" club since about a year and half after its inception. Does that mean it serves no purpose and has no intrinsic value? Of course not; unless you're someone like me who refuses to take one source as absolute proof of anything; I've personally never had a use for the site; that doesn't mean it still doesn't serve its purpose, for better or worse. That said, it's not remotely objective, and never has been. It's been psychologically shown that group filtering is usually far more objective than single source/single observation and analysis, but it's still very very subjective, especially in regard to criterial stringency.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46753738]Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It all depends on what type of dye she used. If she used a non-toxic dye, then its not really a problem. In fact, there are products just for dyeing your pet's fur. If she used something toxic like paint, then it's cruelty/abuse and then someone should step in.[/QUOTE] ''Every time I put on paints, It's the same sad look'' - [url]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5QcIXGCEAELai4.png[/url] perhaps somebody could find if she left and insane reviews on amazon like "lmao this house paint is perfect for my dogs hair "

[QUOTE=finbe;46753910]''Every time I put on paints, It's the same sad look'' - [url]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5QcIXGCEAELai4.png[/url] perhaps somebody could find if she left and insane reviews on amazon like "lmao this house paint is perfect for my dogs hair "[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that says pants.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;46753641]Jesus fucking christ I so want to slap her with an animal abuse charge.[/QUOTE] If you know anything about animal body language, this is not a pleasant series of pictures to look at.