Talk:Wikipedia

Note on Wikipedia policies
Be aware that Wikipedia has policies limiting what information may be included and what sources may be used.


 * "Reliable Source" policy
 * Policy for biographies of living persons
 * "No original research" policy

The honest and fair enforcement of these policies is not a scandal. Snowfox413 (talk) 07:19, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Non-Hostile editors
I am removing the section on Non-Hostile editors because it does not add anything noteworthy to the article. All editors are supposed to be non-hostile.

Something that is noteworthy is how some of these editors have been abused in a manner that may be inconsistent with written Wikipedia policy. That would be worth showing.

The section title also might not be perfectly accurate. Titanium Dragon claimed to have come in from the anti-GG side to protect the page from the newbie horde, and someone permabanned another self-proclaimed anti-GG editor after mistaking them for pro-GG. I can't think of a better title off the top of my head and it would be good enough if there were good content under it. Snowfox413 (talk) 20:52, October 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * Trying to provide some insight on the editors actions here, according to Masem himself: "The reason we can't give what the GG is from the proGG, as explained several times, is that there is no central leadership voice for the proGG that the media can identify to give a concise, accurate statement of the proGG side, so they have to guess and feel around. That is not WP's fault or responsibility to try to fix if reliable sources have tried  and failed to come up with something" 


 * Wouldn't r/KotakuInAction be considered a (somewhat) organised leading subsect of gamergate? Masem at least acknowledges its presence: "on saying that the proGG needs to come to the truth to the mainstream media if they hope to gain any traction (I might have linked their other piece earlier, definitely their attempt to sway the reddit thread)). If anything, this one can be use to positively id the "central" discussion of proGG at 8chan and the reddit KIA board " 


 * I apologise for any formatting errors.JAK0723 (talk) 02:34, October 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * The page for Wikipedia is not a place for nominating people as leaders of the #gamergate movement. Also consider that many members of the movement want no leaders and are quite happy being a disorganized rabble. Introducing people to the media is best handled through private communication between those people and someone in media who would be receptive to their story.


 * A few of the pro-GG wikipedia editors may be notable enough for their own wiki page. Titanium Dragon was doxxed and blocked twice for controversial reasons. Somebody else who is just another editor and has done nothing extraordinary may not be worth mentioning whether they are pro-GG or anti-GG. The focus should be on documenting why they are notable.


 * Feel free to create a page for KiA or add them as a subsection under the Reddit page if you can write up a good description of their history and how they relate to the ongoing controversy. Snowfox413 (talk) 23:09, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Dumping things of interest
https://archive.today/DetFt

- CrazedMan (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ptkd6/by_rting_a_donation_promotion_for_his_gg_stance/

archived versions of Jimbo's tweets saying the conflict of interest page was a hitlist : (1) (2)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5L1CR0CEAEN78C.jpg

https://archive.today/HJ9ik

https://archive.today/8fTrE

https://archive.today/rReaw

- CrazedMan (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2qilwd/wikipedia_editor_theredpenofdoom_says_that_in/

- CrazedMan (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

https://archive.today/Iqa6w

- CrazedMan (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia deletes the Cultural Marxism article with a new voting less than a week after a previous vote showed "no consensus" - Reddit Comment section

- CrazedMan (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:TyTyMang

- CrazedMan (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Ouroboros

- CrazedMan (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Cultural Marxism: Difference between revisions

- CrazedMan (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Towards Better Visual Tools for Exploring Wikipedia Article Development – The Use Case of “Gamergate Controversy

- CrazedMan (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation
Much of this mess can be placed squarely at the feet of those at the Foundation. Sue Gardner has left the building, and Moeller is retained for reasons that remain unclear, as his position has been filled by Damon Sicore, a competent software guy. Moeller is speculated to hold "dirt" on someone influential at the Foundation, and his position is widely regarded as a sinecure. Gardner receives a stipend from the Foundation despite her departure several months ago. She has taken to calling herself "the Mother Teresa of the Internet", although some argue that Mother Teresa is the Sue Gardner of health care, instead.

This article was deleted by Wikia after I added some other names from the Foundation, but had not yet added Gardner, Moeller, and Wales. Jimbo's write up will take time. Should i bother writing it? 108.162.238.186 01:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Erik Moeller gender gap reduction involvement
"Eloquence, also Erik Moeller (WMF), is the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation. His job is to reduce the gender gap by introducing new features, which nobody asked for, nobody wants, and which might have the opposite effect."

I don't see anything in the section or the sources that connects the projects to gender gap reduction. Also, what's with 'new features, which nobody asked for, nobody wants, and which might have the opposite effect.'? Doesn't sound objective at all and if it's a quote it needs to be formatted as such (Still no idea how to properly format quotes on talk pages, BTW). --141.101.88.165 18:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It might not matter much, because Moeller has resigned effective this month. His position will be eliminated with his departure. :) 108.162.238.191 17:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Stierch
I have no idea why Sarah Stierch is included here - as far as I know she has never been involved with editing GamerGate. But if she is included, why put allegations with no basis that she retained the sysop bit for the sake of legal assistance? She retained the bit because no one ever made moves to remove it, and whether or not the WMF provide legal support, there is no evidence provided that any has ever been paid for her. Either way, it has nothing to do with GG. - 108.162.249.189 00:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)