GamerGate Wiki:To Do List

From GamerGate Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is an informal to do list for the wiki. It can include any project ranging from new pages, editing existing pages, to administrative projects. It is intended as a starting point for new editors and to help editors who are working on the same thing collaborate together. To create a new entry, click "Add Topic" next to the edit button. For the section header type in a brief description of the project. In the body describe the project. If you want to discuss an existing project, edit that section. At the end of all messages type ~~~~ which will turn into a timestamped signature when you save.

In general, all the articles need work. This page is used to spotlight articles that people think are important (users can 'Add Topic' as well) and give guidance on how these articles can be improved.

If you have any questions, feel free to:

  • Post on our talk pages.
  • Post on the /gamergate/ or KiA thread (if there isn't one, make one)

Pages We Need

Feel free to propose more pages.

  • Allistair Pinsof
  • Adland
  • Erik Kain
  • Forbes
  • James Portnow
  • Mark Kern
  • Transparency, Disclosure(likely as the same article) and Objectivity. There are many references in this wiki's articles to these concepts and the violation of them but as far as I know, no articles detailing what is the consensus about their meaning among Gamergate participants. I believe, their creation will create a clearer picture of values that Gamergate is fighting to protect an could also help with determining what stuff belongs on the Boycott list/Support list. First sections should contain the definition, highlighting its specifics in Gamergate's context. There should also be some real-life or hypothetical examples, demonstrating what adhering to those values looks like and vice versa, as well as clarification of misconceptions inside and outside Gamergate's context.--HumorlessVandal (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
In principle it might be good, but what about execution? In transparency would we list examples of journalist outlets being transparent? And if so how do we determine what to list? Surely we can't list all examples. If its just a definition of transparency, that seems like it might not be in-depth enough to be an article. What are your ideas for this? Psycho Robot (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
No, no, no, I don't think that we necessarily have to list all the outlets that are being transparent, just a few examples, not necessarily IRL, just for illustrative purposes. And then, when in other articles some outlets are claimed to be transparent, we can refer back to the Transparency article to show what exactly this wiki means by it. If it just links to definitions from outside sources, they might be too broad or even clash in some aspects. More about depth: I've seen some anti-GG sources dismissing the notion of transparency or objectivity as not important enough or mocking them e.g., by describing a police state with no personal expression as being a GG paradise. The article could additionally provide explanation why these values are considered important enough to defend by Gamergate(which is different from the definition) as well as dispel the misconceptions by showing how much is enough and how much is way over that. There's some material that can be salvaged from the Point-Counterpoint article, which I personally think by itself is not encyclopedic and should be dismantled.--HumorlessVandal (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Video game journalism: A common argument against GamerGate is that video game journalism is not 'real' journalism and that professional responsibilities that apply to 'real' journalists don't apply to video game journalists. This wiki could use an article to describe its stance on that matter, as well as denote what it considers journalism, as opposed to blogging or entertainment media and whether those standards should apply to them. This would also tie in well with the User:Rust Cohle/Conflicts of interests article that is currently in the works.--HumorlessVandal (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Need improvement

  • IGDA: Pending sections, check talk page for reference links.
  • The Escapist: Needs summaries for articles
  • NicheGamer: Needs summaries for articles
  • Reddit: Needs encyclopedic formating
  • Jonathan McIntosh: Needs a little bit of everything
  • Ian Miles Cheong GamerGate section needs content - also the Gameranx needs alot of work
  • GamerGate More information, history, possibly look at Wikipedia article (for what they've been misrepresenting) and represent it true in article.
This article extensively covers the inaccuracies in the GG Wikipedia article --BilboEditing (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2015 (EDT)

Public Figures

I think it would be ideal to have some of the public figures in gamegate put on the wiki

Yes that's a good thing to do. I'm working on an article on zoe quinn that, once I'm finished, can be used as a template for other articles. I'm looking up lots of sources so it's a slow process. Psycho Robot (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

Useful Links

Anybody with a link that's useful, but who doesn't know how to put it in an article or can't be assed to do it, can just put it in To Sort, where it will be whisked away to the article of its dreams. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2014 (EDT)

Point Counterpoint

Point-Counterpoint - Collect antiGG's key points and write rebuttals (can also point people to links). --Kawaiisenpai (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2014 (EST)

I note that there are numerous informal logical fallacies present in many of the anti-gg arguments. A list of these could be compiled with very little effort as there are several of them which are noticeable at a glance—so many, in fact, that a separate Logical Fallacies section (or Page) could be created under (or in addition to) the Point Counterpoint page. Thoughts on this? Greedwell (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I think if in the course of refuting specific points, you encounter a fallacy, it's a good idea to point it out, however I don't think creating a list of fallacies is a good idea. You might be pressured to bend the facts a bit to "catch them all" so to speak. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the most salient of these would be the straw man, in this instance. In fact, that seems to be the chief modus operandi of their entire opposition. Dismiss the stated goals of the movement, craft a straw man, persuade mainstream media to disseminate. The most prominent product of this methodology would appear to be the 'bigotry' straw man: We're not about rectifying the unethical practices of the gaming media, we're about excommunicating women from the hobby, because all gamers are fat white virginal misogynerds.
That, in and of itself, is one of the most galling fallacies that they have thus far been perpetrating--one which warrants considerable mention in any such point-counterpoint article, I'm sure you'll concur. Berke Stavoy (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Go through and record all the serious cases of harassment onto Harassment Psycho Robot (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2014 (EDT)

Archive of Posts

If you find any quality posts on forums or KiA, copy it over to Archive of Posts and link to the original. --Kawaiisenpai (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2014 (EST)

Standarts for journalism

We could use pages describing standarts for journalism, something to fall back to and cite when pointing out lack of ethics. This for example.

I'm (very lazily) working on a page dealing with the subject of which situations constitute potential conflicts of interests. Even though it's on my user space, I welcome you (and everybody else seeking to contribute) to edit that page. - Rust Cohle (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)