Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=_Axel;46906464]Have these people opened a history book once in their lives?[/QUOTE] It's okay to protect the purity of one kind of culture because, as we all know, no culture is ever allowed to change or adapt, and because white people have embraced multiculturalism, multiculturalism is bad. [editline]11th January 2015[/editline] Which is doubly ironic, since the main racist argument against multiculturalism is that it panders to people of other races.

The power of statistics say Gamergate is 150.000 sockpuppets strong (and this is just twitter): [quote]Gamergate has been keeping up a steady population of almost 150,000 distinct, individual contributors. Both the average ages of the users’ accounts and the fact that subtracting accounts that have been created since the emergence of the hashtag are inconsistent with the hypothesis that a large number of sockpuppet accounts would participate in Gamergate. The examination of population diversity indicated that #Gamergate is relatively even and diverse rather than being dominated by a few loud voices. The Shannon metric, as a proxy of evenness within the population, suggests that #Gamergate remains an even ground for discussion. The very high proportion (almost 3:1) of retweets and the high average following:follower ratio suggests that the primary purpose of #Gamergate is the exchange and dissemination of information. This reinforces the thesis, articulated previously, that Gamergate is a ‘trust and curation’ network: the primary purpose of the network is to replace established media, which users perceive as corrupt and having lost its credibility, by a network of curated information relying on mutually trusted endorsement.[/quote] [url]http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2015/01/11/gamergate-4-population.html[/url] Fringe group you guys

[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;46906558]The power of statistics say Gamergate is 150.000 sockpuppets strong (and this is just twitter): [url]http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2015/01/11/gamergate-4-population.html[/url] Fringe group you guys[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/opk8DMO.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;46906558]The power of statistics say Gamergate is 150.000 sockpuppets strong (and this is just twitter): [url]http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2015/01/11/gamergate-4-population.html[/url] Fringe group you guys[/QUOTE] [quote]The very high proportion (almost 3:1) of retweets and the high average following:follower ratio suggests that the primary purpose of #Gamergate is the exchange and dissemination of information. This reinforces the thesis, articulated previously, that Gamergate is a ‘trust and curation’ network: the primary purpose of the network is to replace established media, which users perceive as corrupt and having lost its credibility, by a network of curated information relying on mutually trusted endorsement.7 In this sense, population analysis reinforces that we are witnessing a new reaction to perceived media inadequacy: centralised curation of information (as happens e.g. via editorial decisions in journals) is replaced by decentralised, crowd-sourced curation and assignment of trust - “if you can’t trust anybody, start trusting everybody”. In this sense, the creation of such curation networks represents the future of consumer reactions to media - where the users feel abandoned, resilient and relatively insensitive (to individual opinions, anyway) networks take their place. More research in this area is certainly apposite, especially in tracking the same effect in other movements where dissatisfaction with the media is a key motivator, such as political activism in countries with widespread media (self-)censorship. [/quote] Honestly I don't know why wikipedia doesn't accept this, it's math. It's not like they can just say "We can't accept that because we can't be assed to do it ourselfs."

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46907007]Honestly I don't know why wikipedia doesn't accept this, it's math. It's not like they can just say "We can't accept that because we can't be assed to do it ourselfs."[/QUOTE] math means nothing if it wasn't posted on the verge or kotaku

[QUOTE=Diaklu;46906808][img]http://i.imgur.com/opk8DMO.png[/img][/QUOTE] Triggernometry is no laughing matter.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;46904844]Check out Milo's feed: [URL]https://twitter.com/Nero/status/554309365046718464[/URL] [URL]https://twitter.com/Nero/status/554310265752539137[/URL] [URL]https://twitter.com/Nero/status/554311922968182786[/URL] [URL]https://twitter.com/Nero/status/554314217252458498[/URL] [URL]https://twitter.com/Nero/status/554317447789293568[/URL] Quinn included Milo in her police reports and claimed that he facilitated the spread of her personal information/photoshoot through his podcast. Smells like perjury to me.[/QUOTE] he just arrived at JFK (NYC) airport [URL]https://twitter.com/Nero/status/554424274950574080[/URL] sounds like he's actually going to boston

[QUOTE=JesseR92;46906308]It is depressingly Ironic that some of those crusading against sexism support and advocate it.[/QUOTE] It's easier when you define -ism as saying ____ can't be victims of -ism because of "power". Whether talking about men/sexism, whites/racism, etc.

Comics! [IMG]http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110223.gif[/IMG] Nerd Cubed mentions journalism and stuff; also appears that people are attacking anybody who even appears on totalbiscuts shows, if he is right. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAqmRllKk-k&t=2480[/url] (Have to use link because of timestamp

[QUOTE=Wii60;46905889][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XF5yon4.png[/IMG] [URL]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women[/URL][/QUOTE] best response to this btw [img]http://i.imgur.com/JsGlIed.jpg[/img]

[t]https://i.imgur.com/7IeLY0j.jpg[/t] I wonder if they will ever change the article, considering it's false right now.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7byUpdCUtuk[/media]

[QUOTE=TurboSax;46906223]Those are all positive things that only help you improve, regardless of whether or not the person giving said advice/criticism/explanations has a dick or not. Without advice from someone knowledgeable, taking an unknown risk is always more likely to end badly. Without criticism, the likelihood of being aware of your efforts' flaws and how to fix them is lowered drastically. Without explanations, coming to understand any concept is significantly more difficult. It means jack shit whether it comes from a male or not, those three things they're trying to be "safe" from are nothing but helpful, and might even be necessary to having any efforts turn out well. Of course, not like it matters, all these kinds of idiots want is another personal echo chamber in which to hide from the nasty realities of the world.[/QUOTE] I think what you're missing here is "[B][I]male[/I][/B] advice, criticisms, and explanations." not just "advice, criticisms, and explanations". Why should men be able to insert themselves into a safe space for women to provide advice, criticisms, and explanations for problems they don't even have to deal with?

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46907599][t]https://i.imgur.com/7IeLY0j.jpg[/t] I wonder if they will ever change the article, considering it's false right now.[/QUOTE] I haven't visited Cracked since the first wave of shit articles and I haven't ever missed it.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907708]I think what you're missing here is "[B][I]male[/I][/B] advice, criticisms, and explanations." not just "advice, criticisms, and explanations". Why should men be able to insert themselves into a safe space for women to provide advice, criticisms, and explanations for problems they don't even have to deal with?[/QUOTE] What page on an encyclopedia requires that distinction? At what point does knowing an editor's gender positively contribute to the quality of a reliable article?

[QUOTE=1legmidget;46907739]What page on an encyclopedia requires that distinction? At what point does knowing an editor's gender positively contribute to the quality of a reliable article?[/QUOTE] Did you even read the original image? It's not for editing pages, its for discussions.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907708]I think what you're missing here is "[B][I]male[/I][/B] advice, criticisms, and explanations." not just "advice, criticisms, and explanations". Why should men be able to insert themselves into a safe space for women to provide advice, criticisms, and explanations for problems they don't even have to deal with?[/QUOTE] [quote]As a female editor, this is wholeheartedly and painful discrimination. I don't need a special place where only I can speak, nor where my male editors which I encounter every day can't contribute. Plus, the proposal is just plain vague. A place where male editors can't contribute where 'advice, criticism, and explanations' from men are not allowed. Seriously, this whole proposal is based on the false premise that male editors are intimidating, that Wikipedia is deserving of being segregated by sex and that women need their own space where they can't be criticized by the other sex. This is out of the window in terms of civility, wikilove, and everything like it. Oppose. Tutelary (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[/quote] I don't see why they need a safe space in the first place, it's sexist for it to exist in the first place. How long until we get "Safe-space for men?" - Let's just have a space for everybody to identify so they are exempt from all criticisms of opposing peoples. It promotes misandry and just a general "echo-chamber" gated community. It's not good for a place that is basically built upon open discussions and debate. Furthermore, this could be expanded politically, so then we have everybody fighting each other with no discussion. If there is any reason why fights on the internet are so common, it's because there is no discussion or debate, and people surround themselves only by people they agree with limited opinions. [QUOTE=xxncxx;46907753]Did you even read the original image? It's not for editing pages, its for discussions. Like the post I first replied to reeked of "boohoo why won't the women let me mansplain things in their safe space :((((". This is why safe spaces exist.[/QUOTE] Everytime somebody anti-gamergate comes in here they always post something along the lines of the bottom quote. (I have yet to see somebody not do this.) This is NOT how you debate. Attacking character just makes you look dumb, and is promoting non-civil discussion.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907753]Did you even read the original image? It's not for editing pages, its for discussions. Like the post I first replied to reeked of "boohoo why won't the women let me mansplain things in their safe space :((((". This is why safe spaces exist.[/QUOTE] Going to break the news to ya: wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your private hangout to discuss how to bring down the patriarchy

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46907778]I don't see why they need a safe space in the first place, it's sexist for it to exist in the first place. How long until we get "Safe-space for men?" - Let's just have a space for everybody to identify so they are exempt from all criticisms of opposing peoples. It promotes misandry and just a general "echo-chamber" gated community. It's not good for a place that is basically built upon open discussions and debate. Furthermore, this could be expanded politically, so then we have everybody fighting each other with no discussion. If there is any reason why fights on the internet are so common, it's because there is no discussion or debate, and people surround themselves only by people they agree with limited opinions.[/QUOTE] So I guess safe spaces for LGBT people is heterophobia?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907793]So I guess safe spaces for LGBT people is heterophobia?[/QUOTE] I never incited that. They exist, and they promote open discussion; this type of wikiproject does not. It limits discussion.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46907806]I never incited that. Furthermore; LGBT have nothing against heterosexual people and they weren't created against them, but rather homophobic people who would threaten them.[/QUOTE] You did when you said safe spaces for women are sexist. Same exact logic bud.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907808]You did when you said safe spaces for women are sexist. Same exact logic bud.[/QUOTE] I edited my post, I realized I was wrong there. Either way, its sexist against women because it assumes they cannot defend themselves and are incapable of discussion with men - its not like they are being openly persecuted on Wikipedia. See quote I posted earlier. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the facts presented in articles should be judged based on their merits, not the identity of the author." - Theres no need for non-open discussions in the first place - the only thing closed discussions promote is a hugbox.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907753]Did you even read the original image? It's not for editing pages, its for discussions. Like the post I first replied to reeked of "boohoo why won't the women let me mansplain things in their safe space :((((". This is why safe spaces exist.[/QUOTE] xxncxx, you have already been banned from threadshitting in this thread before. Stop while your ahead.

[QUOTE=Fangz;46907835]xxncxx, you have already been banned from threadshitting in this thread before. Stop while your ahead.[/QUOTE] Apart from the one attack post earlier I see nothing wrong with debating and discussion; it's why were here isn't it?

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46907828]I edited my post, I realized I was wrong there. [B]Either way, its sexist against women because it assumes they cannot defend themselves and are incapable of discussion with men [/B]- its not like they are being openly persecuted on Wikipedia. See quote I posted earlier. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the facts presented in articles should be judged based on their merits, not the identity of the author.[/QUOTE] Uhh, it would be that case if men were creating the safe space for women, but that isn't the case. Safe spaces are usually created by the people they are for.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907793]So I guess safe spaces for LGBT people is heterophobia?[/QUOTE] There's a time and a place for safe spaces. I used to tutor kids h[URL="http://www.juliancenter.org/"]ere[/URL] back when I lived in Indy. I'm currently involved with [URL="http://www.pridelafayette.org/"]this[/URL] institution and a couple shelters. I've seen firsthand the need for such institutions and support groups, and I'm not opposed to the concept as a whole. I am incredibly frustrated that a sizable chunk of internet morons are running about diminishing the meaning of the term 'safe-space' with poorly executed institutions and demands across hundreds of platforms. As other people have already mentioned, there are already rules set in place within the wiki community to prevent the need for this project. If you bothered to read the page you'd notice this under the creator comments: [QUOTE]Further, if you read just the lead of the WP:PROJ page, you'll see that a WikiProject for women would simply be a "a group of contributors [women contributors] who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia." It could: [B]Help coordinate and organize the group's efforts at creating and improving articles[/B];[/QUOTE] Additionally, Aldnonymous brought up an extremely important point in his opposition, that being that restricting [I]anyone's[/I] access to information goes against the core interests of the WMF as a whole. Pretty much everyone is opposed to this proposition at the moment, for good reasons.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907851]Uhh, it would be that case if men were creating the safe space for women, but that isn't the case. Safe spaces are usually created by the people they are for.[/QUOTE] You can be sexist against your own gender. This would be the case - they assume all women are incapable of defending themselves, like I said. It only promotes a hugbox to happen with closed discussions - there's are a reason no closed discussions on Wikipedia exist and never will. If they want to create one off site, sure, go ahead - but Wikipedia won't be advertising it. I have stated previously, it's built on the fundamentals of open discussion - closing it off will just radicalize ideas and actions.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46907867]You can be sexist against your own gender. This would be the case - they assume all women are incapable of defending themselves, like I said. It only promotes a hugbox to happen with closed discussions - there's are a reason no closed discussions on Wikipedia exist and never will. If they want to create one off site, sure, go ahead - but Wikipedia won't be advertising it. I have stated previously, it's built on the fundamentals of open discussion - [B]closing it off will just radicalize ideas and actions.[/B][/QUOTE] This is implying that all women hold the same world view and set of beliefs which is clearly not true. Safe spaces aren't "we can't argue with you so we're gonna make a <insert identity here> only club", I don't know where you're getting this notion from.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907793]So I guess safe spaces for LGBT people is heterophobia?[/QUOTE] It's an encyclopedia, encylopedia's are supposed to be sources of facts and information. It's not a blog or a forum. The understanding of facts and information doesn't require you to be a specific gender or sex. A male gynecologist probably knows more about the female reproduction system than a woman on the street does. Everyone on wikipedia is allowed to contribute regardless of age, socioeconomic status, skin color, sex or gender. Fact checking of information from a number of different sources is pivotal to maintaining a diverse and correct wiki. This exercise is pointless and derogatory, it's only purpose is to pull away focus from the fact checking of information to petty identity politics. If you want a 'safe place' where you will never be criticized or face the staunch realities of the real world, go start a blog and don't ruin a major source of factual information on the internet. [QUOTE=xxncxx;46907883]This is implying that all women hold the same world view and set of beliefs which is clearly not true. Safe spaces aren't "we can't argue with you so we're gonna make a <insert identity here> only club", I don't know where you're getting this notion from.[/QUOTE] SJWs attack women who don't agree with them, it's a fact. You think that these kind of 'safe spaces' are actually safe places for all women to speak? If you go there and you say you disagree and that you're a woman, you'll be ripped to shreads with people saying you've "internalized misogyny" and be bullied and abused until you either convert to the "right side of history" or leave. These aren't safe places for women, they're shelters from criticism.

[QUOTE=Zyler;46907892]It's an encyclopedia, encylopedia's are supposed to be sources of facts and information. It's not a blog or a forum. The understanding of facts and information doesn't require you to be a specific gender or sex. A male gynecologist probably knows more about the female reproduction system than a woman on the street does. Everyone on wikipedia is allowed to contribute regardless of age, socioeconomic status, skin color, sex or gender. Fact checking of information from a number of different sources is pivotal to maintaining a diverse and correct wiki. This exercise is pointless and derogatory, it's only purpose is to pull away focus from the fact checking of information to petty identity politics. If you want a 'safe place' where you will never be criticized or face the staunch realities of the real world, go start a blog and don't ruin a major source of factual information on the internet.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about wikipedia, I'm talking about safe spaces in general.