Talk:GamerGate Achievements

Seperating events from achievements
I've basically been copying notable achievements from the Timeline. Things listed here should be attributed to GamerGate. It's possible I might have added something that doesn't belong myself, in which case just remove it. General structure of the article should be apparent now. The article should be condensed, which should be quite possible considering it almost looks and reads like another timeline (which it shouldn't). Any thoughts? --Does Not Compute talk 23:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per chat on IRC, revealing collusion and the like doesn't count as an achievement unless there's ethics policy changes or similar as a consequence of it. Basically if exposure of corruption/collusion doesn't lead to anything, it's not an achievement. --Does Not Compute talk 13:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't place these two
I can't place this and this time-wise. Someone add them to the correct month (where they started). --Does Not Compute talk 00:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. SHAWN  tlkpg 22:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Add more sources
Especially when sources are only from reddit or blogs. It would be nice when someone adds more (reliable) sources. Sometimes it's not possible, but just so you have an alternative.

Hey, I have a few issues with the GG Achievements
My main issue is this:

Since GamerGate is a consumer revolt that deals with corrupt journalists and journalist sites, adding in any information about people being doxxed by Anti-GamerGaters, Zoe Quinn's allegations on Wizard Chan being unfounded, and even how Hatred was reinstated on Greenlight seems to have little to nothing to actually do with GamerGate or journalism. I believe that we need to stick strictly on the accomplishments of GamerGate, which includes charity runs and changes to the Code of Ethics, which are the majority of the list and are nicely done. We should steer clear of mentioning things outside the realm of journalism or outside of the direct cause and effect of the GamerGate hashtag, especially where individuals are involved. --LucyWalcott (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points and I'll go through and remove some of the more irrelevant things, however to say that GamerGate is only about ethics in the strictest sense is a bit disingenuous. Ethics are a big part of it, probably most of it, but another part is also related to pushing back against the authoritarian left that would see games they don't like censored and developers who disagree with them brought into line or expelled from the industry. Now, this could be construed as yet more ethical concerns, it's pretty fucking unethical to use your position as a journalist to call for games to be banned - or to celebrate them being banned, but in some cases it's not unethical, just morally wrong. That's why I think the Hatred reinstating should remain on the list. I don't think what happened with Hatred was unethical by the letter of the definition, but pushing back against that sort of censorial attitude is certainly something to be proud of. Psycho Robot (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * True, I guess I can see how pushing back against the banning of the game Hatred should remain on the list. It should, however, be noted on the article why it is included though, in my opinion. The list claims that Hatred was reinstated, but it is unclear to the people who are not a common part of GamerGate, or are new to Gamergate, why it was removed in the first place. I think it would be best to link to the Change .com petition or other articles explaining and giving evidence as to why it was taken down, just to give some clarity and context for the newbies. Also, I want to thank you for responding to my concerns, and I agree that what happened with Hatred was morally wrong and was done out of spite by a large number of Anti-Gamers who filed reports against the game because of the inclusion of non-white and non-male characters. That and what happened to GTA V, and on non-game related business, what is currently happening with 50 Shades of Gray. Again, thanks for responding and hearing my concerns. --LucyWalcott (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization
How about completely reorganizing this page like so? Less timeliney, easier to read, looks natural, simply better IMHO.&#32;Does Not Compute talk 08:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)