| Revision as of 08:29, 1 May 2015 view sourceTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →Depression Quest← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:31, 1 May 2015 view source TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →Depression QuestNext edit → | ||
| Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
| ::::::::::::Yes we have sources that explain - not specific to any review but reviews in general - that GG wants what they call "objective reviews" that ignore any messages or story or the like in games and focus on the gameplay, graphics, and mechanics. (eg , ). I'm only explaining that this is how the GG side thinks, for purposes of understanding for us editors of why anyone would question the claim that DQ was critically acclaimed, and how these DQ reviews would fall into GG's idea that there were ethical problems with these critics and sites. I am not stating from my own POV that there's any ethical issues here at all, only to describe the GG logic here. This information cannot be added because there's no appropriate sourcing to tie the DQ reviews to GG's "objective reviews", but only that this line of reasoning exists within GG, and we should be aware this does exists to prevent its addition without forthcoming sourcing. --] (]) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | ::::::::::::Yes we have sources that explain - not specific to any review but reviews in general - that GG wants what they call "objective reviews" that ignore any messages or story or the like in games and focus on the gameplay, graphics, and mechanics. (eg , ). I'm only explaining that this is how the GG side thinks, for purposes of understanding for us editors of why anyone would question the claim that DQ was critically acclaimed, and how these DQ reviews would fall into GG's idea that there were ethical problems with these critics and sites. I am not stating from my own POV that there's any ethical issues here at all, only to describe the GG logic here. This information cannot be added because there's no appropriate sourcing to tie the DQ reviews to GG's "objective reviews", but only that this line of reasoning exists within GG, and we should be aware this does exists to prevent its addition without forthcoming sourcing. --] (]) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::And dont forget the objective "how fun it is".-- ] 08:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC) | :::::::::::::And dont forget the objective "how fun it is".-- ] 08:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::But, no Masem, we do not need to take into any account gg's completely divorced from reality misconstruing of words. we are not their therapists nor a substitute for an educational system which has obviously greatly failed them. -- ] 08:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:31, 1 May 2015
| Skip to table of contents |
 | WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously. |
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WikiProject_Internet_Culture_logo.svg){kind=link}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find video game sources: "Gamergate" harassment campaign – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 2 days  |
Sanctions enforcement
All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.
Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Death
Something we should possibly cover: Online Troll Urges Game Developer Rachel Bryk To Commit Suicide Artw (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with GamerGate? GamerPro64 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- This seems to be part of the larger gaming + culture war that Masem and I have been having WRT where GG is used as an example + other topics. This does seem to be tied to GG, but not explicitly stated in the source; it would required OR to link it to GG. SHORTER: Can't use it here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe see if it works with Gamer or Sexism in video gaming ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Different culture war. Concurrently and completely separate from GG there has been a LGBT (particularly trans) combative nature online; they deal with the same issues of cyberharassment but not the gender cultural war that GG is part of. The venues they cross over in terms of those speaking out against it are similar (an issue dealt by the recent Senate hearing, and part of the message the Calgery Expo was trying to present), but it's a very different type of "war" than the GG + related culture war. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe see if it works with Gamer or Sexism in video gaming ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot of intersection here between typical gamergaters and the people who would have been hurling abuse at Rachel Bryk. I think it's definitely worthy of inclusion as more of the 'culture war' type angle, but it's difficult to tell where in the article it would be best to include. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is the source even a reliable source to use here? I never even heard of Vocativ until now. And even then I fail to see its inclusion to this article. GamerPro64 23:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Washington Post article, GamerGate mentioned. Artw (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- The connection in that article to GG is still weak. There's no question the same mentality of people performing harassment leading to her suicide and those doing GG harassment is similar, and perhaps even common people, but as one who's also watched the trans-issue play out loudly over the recent months, its a far different issue, and just because this happened to involve a game developer doesn't necessary make it GG related. They are linked by cyberharassment mentalities, not by culture war. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's a fairly direct link with the culture war stuff re: ("raises questions about the misogynist online gaming culture that reared its ugly head during last year’s Gamergate controversy.") PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Washington Post article, GamerGate mentioned. Artw (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is no "trans issue;" there's just Gamergate’s ongoing, orchestrated campaign of misogynist harassment. An issue is subject to debate or discussion: what would one be discussing here? Whether it’s OK for a transgendered software developer to live? Note the closing quote from the Gamergate organizing board: "good riddens." I suppose we're going to have another five-thousand word debate here on the issue of whether this was done by Gamergate supporters or by entirely different people who just happen to have been using the same boards, the same techniques, the same rhetoric, against a very similar target. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think we could put this, some of the cultural context stuff, and other examples of GG-type behavior being compared to GG in the Social and cultural implications section or Gamergate activities section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- How about "Gamergate as benchmark" and talk about the comparisons to GG and uses of GG as example. There's plenty of RS for it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- She committed suicide because she was harassed for being a trandgendered person. Nothing to do with GG or any GG related issues. The 4chan-mentality of turning to cyber harassment is common but this has nothing to do with the culture war about the "young white male" losing predominance in various fields to which GG has been directly compared. Instead, this is simply because there are people (both genders) that do not accept the idea that sexual identity is something that can be chosen by the person and chose to attack those that are trans or support it. It has been a much longer time coming (since at least 2010) but existed before GG. To connect it to GG beyond any more than the common use of cyberharassment is a pure synthesis. Of course, one could argue that we might have a section about opinions of the use of cyberharassment, but this topic alone begs for larger coverage than Computer crime currently offers, and GG is not the page to start it because cyberharassment long predated it. On the other hand, the "young white male" culture war is something that GG is the epitome of, and until a page is made about that, makes sense to discuss how related situations to GG fall in here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- GG is reportedly pro-harassment and anti-transgendered person. If RS are noting this connection (and the washington post are) we should. PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is not a doubt in my mind that gamergate is transphobic, but what amounts to an aside in the Washington Post article about Ms. Bryk's suicide strikes me as a slim reed on which to lean. I'd say that unless a connection is made more clear, it's best left out; I sometimes fear this article will become a dumping ground for "bad things online." Then again, there are plenty of wiser wikipedians than me around here. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. This is the first article even connects GG with transphobia though it would be no surprise that transphobia exists in the GG community. Everything's been about their antifeminism, and the name drop in this begs the WEIGHT issue for inclusion. If it is demonstrated more that GG had a hand in the harassment that lead to the suicide, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Presumably, the criminal conviction of a known Gamergate supporter would justify inclusion here. Would any other development, in your view, do so? Repeated discussions of this sort in impeccable sources, perhaps? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- It would need to be more than one name drop in a source to surpass WEIGHT. If two or three highly RS sources ascribe some responsibility of her suicide on the harassment from transphobic GGers, that would be something. This article does not say this. Even the point the GG is transphobic is OR given that no RS have made this claim even we all agree this is the likely case. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out that gamergate has been linked with transphobia before; for instance at Ars Technica. I just don't think it's helpful to discuss this particular tragedy in this article. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Presumably, the criminal conviction of a known Gamergate supporter would justify inclusion here. Would any other development, in your view, do so? Repeated discussions of this sort in impeccable sources, perhaps? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. This is the first article even connects GG with transphobia though it would be no surprise that transphobia exists in the GG community. Everything's been about their antifeminism, and the name drop in this begs the WEIGHT issue for inclusion. If it is demonstrated more that GG had a hand in the harassment that lead to the suicide, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is not a doubt in my mind that gamergate is transphobic, but what amounts to an aside in the Washington Post article about Ms. Bryk's suicide strikes me as a slim reed on which to lean. I'd say that unless a connection is made more clear, it's best left out; I sometimes fear this article will become a dumping ground for "bad things online." Then again, there are plenty of wiser wikipedians than me around here. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- GG is reportedly pro-harassment and anti-transgendered person. If RS are noting this connection (and the washington post are) we should. PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think we could put this, some of the cultural context stuff, and other examples of GG-type behavior being compared to GG in the Social and cultural implications section or Gamergate activities section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is no "trans issue;" there's just Gamergate’s ongoing, orchestrated campaign of misogynist harassment. An issue is subject to debate or discussion: what would one be discussing here? Whether it’s OK for a transgendered software developer to live? Note the closing quote from the Gamergate organizing board: "good riddens." I suppose we're going to have another five-thousand word debate here on the issue of whether this was done by Gamergate supporters or by entirely different people who just happen to have been using the same boards, the same techniques, the same rhetoric, against a very similar target. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Again, it is a different culture war, though I would not be surprised if there's a common membership to those performing the harassment to it. But it is not the same culture war that has been directly tied to GG like the comic-gate stuff which has been directly tied. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ctrl F "Gamergate" = 'Phrase not found' Bosstopher (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, attempts to include this incident look to be just more POV pushing. Weedwacker (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you have ideas to improve the article, by all means, suggest them. Dumuzid (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Removing a para from "In other media"
This paragraph is embarrassing.
- I have no idea what "Patterns of behavior related to the ongoing culture war that has been demonstrated by the Gamergate controversy have been identified in other media areas." is supposed to convey to the reader that couldn't just be done by saying what we actually mean. Reads like throat clearing to me, at best.
- "...to counter an increase in the diversity of the awards given out..." Unless the Hugos added new categories that's probably not what we mean.
- "some with connections to the Gamergate hashtag" How do you get a connection to a hashtag?
- "...which has been compared the cultural divide and motivations of the Gamergate controversy." By whom? And what is being compared? What is the "cultural divide" of gamergate? And why, given that we're so picky about ascribing motivation to GG to we blithely accept that comparison here?
- "... Some revisionings of popular comic book characters in 2014" What is a "revisioning"?
- "... led to similar outcries and pushbacks by a number of readers..." This is bush league. A "number of readers"? Also "pushbacks" is not a word. And who is judging the complaints of the puppies to be "similar" to the complaints about Thor et al.? Not the salon article, because it came out before the nominees were released. The atlantic makes some comparisons between GG and the Hugos but not the Hugos and comics, probably because the complaints aren't actually similar.
- "...in a manner that has been compared to Gamergate." Again, compared by whom? Is there any evidence that this is something other than Milo having a tantrum about the 21st century and Salon getting the vapors over it? Because I'm not seeing it.
- "...including Yiannopoulos..." Yeah, including Yiannopoulos because he's the focus of that Salon post. There may be other readers, but salon only links out to Yiannopoulos and focuses on him. It's unacceptable to weasel out of that fact about the source by including its main focus as a "by the by". It's more frustrating because Salon out and out says it's an " at manufacturing controversy" and we've somehow digested that and presented it to the reader as though it were an actual live issue without any additional sourcing.
- "what they perceive as forced diversity into the comic books" What in the ham sandwich is forced diversity (or "the comic books")? And here again we're ascribing motive unnecessarily. Aside from invective, the source is pretty unclear on the motives of "readers". If we're interested in Yiannopoulos's motives (no idea why we would be) then he has a website we can link to.
- The use of passive voice and compound sentences (really, comma splices) throughout makes it difficult to figure out who is doing what to whom and why.
I'm also not sure why this belongs in "In other media" as that is a section normally used for stuff in the first graf (and not the second, but that's another fight). We should probably have something about the Hugos on the page, given that there are a raft of sources on the subject. I don't know how many sources there are connecting GG to complaints about comics, but if the Salon source is all we have I don't see why it needs to be in the article.
We have two thoughts we want to convey to the reader. First, that the Sad/Rabid puppies takeover of the Hugos is both reminiscent of and linked to GG. Second, that Milo Yiannopoulos is mad about a thing and Salon is mad about that (and this is somehow linked to GG). We don't do a good job of conveying that. So I'm removing it. Protonk (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Then fix it but don't remove it. If it is there, and perhaps tagged with a copyedit tag, then others know there might be problems. Unless there's outright BLP issues (which there aren't in this) removal is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- No. A fix would be to reduce it to two declarative sentences (or one, given that I'm only really convinced that the Hugo mention belongs). You can feel free to do that yourself. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Further, because we require BLP violations be removed does not imply that the only content which should be removed is that which violates BLP. We remove content all the time from articles where it detracts from the reader's understanding or where the information it presents is marginal. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- However, we've had discussions about including this material (not the specific language) in the past, so removing information that was agreed to inclusion by consensus is not helpful. Tagging for copyediting problem, yes, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- These are not just copyediting problems. The content that was removed is inaccurate, uses weasel words to avoid specifying claims and arguably misrepresents sources. Consensus that we add content isn't consensus to keep it around in whatever form it took when it first landed. And please don't patronize me by telling me what's "helpful" and "fine". Protonk (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone one of the points you make above is easily fixed if they were identified on the talk page first. I agree with your points of what was wrong but all of that is one wordsmith away from a fix, save for what you think was the connection between the Hugo and comics, which there was none - its Hugo to GG, and separately comics to GG. If the language suggested this, it should be cleaned up. Removal of content that is otherwise not an immediate content problem (like BLP or unsourced material) and that can be fixed is counter to WP policies, particularly on a page like this. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Everyone one of the points you make above is easily fixed if they were identified on the talk page first." I did just identify them on the talk page.
- The two discussion I see about the Hugos are here and here. Is there another discussion I'm missing? Because neither of those show thunderous approval for including this material. If I'm to be beaten about the head and shoulders for not respecting consensus, I'd like to see one.
- I'm not going to go in circles about the content removal question. You have made the same statement twice now. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone one of the points you make above is easily fixed if they were identified on the talk page first. I agree with your points of what was wrong but all of that is one wordsmith away from a fix, save for what you think was the connection between the Hugo and comics, which there was none - its Hugo to GG, and separately comics to GG. If the language suggested this, it should be cleaned up. Removal of content that is otherwise not an immediate content problem (like BLP or unsourced material) and that can be fixed is counter to WP policies, particularly on a page like this. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- These are not just copyediting problems. The content that was removed is inaccurate, uses weasel words to avoid specifying claims and arguably misrepresents sources. Consensus that we add content isn't consensus to keep it around in whatever form it took when it first landed. And please don't patronize me by telling me what's "helpful" and "fine". Protonk (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- However, we've had discussions about including this material (not the specific language) in the past, so removing information that was agreed to inclusion by consensus is not helpful. Tagging for copyediting problem, yes, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Protonk: I don't disagree, but n practical terms it might be easier if you'd propose that sentence or two. You're not alone in your concerns here, but I do think the connection to the Hugo mess should be drawn explicitly. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I've added the paragraph back with edits. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Depression Quest
Im looking at the reviews for Depression Quest and it looks like the reviews were mixed at best. Is there a reason as to why the sentence is constructed as "Though the game was positively met by critics"? Would it not be more accurate to say the game was reviewed positively by "some" critics? Cavalierman (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please cite the reviews in independent reliable sources which were negative, Cavalierman. Then, we will have a basis for talking. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This seems like WP:OR. I was under the impression that the reviews were designated that way because it was the general take of the RS? Dumuzid (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe Dumzid is right and we should get rid of the whole "was met positively". Here are the reviews I was talking about:
The first review I looked at was Reaxxion: http://www.reaxxion.com/2167/a-review-of-the-anti-game-depression-quest The other one I looked at was Operation Ranfall. http://operationrainfall.com/2014/08/26/review-depression-quest/ Both give a negative overall review. Are these not considered "critics" Cavalierman (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Cavalierman:It would be preferable if you could cite secondary sources for your proposed change, rather than primary sources like the reviews themselves. I think 'was met positively' is fair given the reliable sources, though a qualifier like "for the most part" might be accurate, but it seems to be a case of 'omit needless words' for me. Dumuzid (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is our obligation to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say, and that is in no way original research. Neither of the sources you linked to qualify as reliable sources here on Misplaced Pages. They are basically blog posts by individuals expressing their own Individual opinions. Those sources show no signs of professional editorial control, fact checking or error correction. I consider them worthless here on Misplaced Pages. If a large majority of actual reliable sources reviewing a game, or a movie, or a book are positive, we say so. If it is a 65-35 split, we say most reviewers were positive but some dissented, and summarize appropriately. If 98% were positive, but 2% fringe sources dissented, we give very little or no attention to the fringe sources. So, how does it break down here? Cullen Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I checked through the sources we had for that bit, the only source that mentioned the amount of positive reviews stated that the game received near-universally positive reviews so that's how I've phrased it in our article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Both Cullen + Peter are right here. We're looking at reviews from mainstream/well-established sites simply because anyone with a computer and internet connection can claim to be a reviewer, so we use what is stated about reviews from an established presence. It's well understood (even before GG) that the non-mainstream reviews were poor and perhaps influenced by how some saw Quinn rather than the aspect of the game, and that's factored in the article appropriately already. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I checked through the sources we had for that bit, the only source that mentioned the amount of positive reviews stated that the game received near-universally positive reviews so that's how I've phrased it in our article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is our obligation to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say, and that is in no way original research. Neither of the sources you linked to qualify as reliable sources here on Misplaced Pages. They are basically blog posts by individuals expressing their own Individual opinions. Those sources show no signs of professional editorial control, fact checking or error correction. I consider them worthless here on Misplaced Pages. If a large majority of actual reliable sources reviewing a game, or a movie, or a book are positive, we say so. If it is a 65-35 split, we say most reviewers were positive but some dissented, and summarize appropriately. If 98% were positive, but 2% fringe sources dissented, we give very little or no attention to the fringe sources. So, how does it break down here? Cullen Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Cavalierman:It would be preferable if you could cite secondary sources for your proposed change, rather than primary sources like the reviews themselves. I think 'was met positively' is fair given the reliable sources, though a qualifier like "for the most part" might be accurate, but it seems to be a case of 'omit needless words' for me. Dumuzid (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- It should reflect Depression Quest#Reception. i.e. not fun. dark, educational. --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This seems extraneous to me. Isn't linking to the game's own entry enough? I don't see how that really affects this article. Dumuzid (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am not seeing where in the references Depression-Quest received "near-universal" positive reviews. As a matter of fact, can anyone provide more than one reliable source that gives DQ a positive review? I am excluding blogs and unreliable sources- I am talking about actual mainstream reviews and critics who received the game positively. I am only finding one. Cavalierman (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Aja Romano for the Daily Dot writes "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression..." Phil Savage for PC Gamer writes "Depression Quest is a particularly interesting pick. Developed by Zoe Quinn, it's a moving and revealing insight into what it's like to live with depression." You're welcome. Source: The citations directly after the phrasing you are criticising. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is very interesting. In the Daily Dot Article NBSB references, the quote reads as follows (notice the embedded links as they were in the original quote): "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression, many gamers saw it differently." If we look at the first "review" linked (rockpapershotgun), there is no review at all. The author admits to have never played the game. The second review is indeed positive, yet the third piece from destructoid is merely a preview/description. The author gives no indication that he ever played the game, much less a review. So we have exactly one source that apparently misinterpreted other sources, and this is the basis for "nearly universal positive reviews"? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this seems to be jumping to conclusions not to mention misleading our readers. Thoughts? Cavalierman (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Our job is to reflect reliable sources, not research the claims they make. I suggest you read our policies about original research on WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Peter is correct, reliable sourcing call the reviews positive. But we should be aware as editors that the review like that of RPS (first link above) is the type of review that triggered the ethical concerns of GG. No, we can't make that statement as no other source explicitly mentions that so it is otherwise OR, but we should be aware of that type of history is involved. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- What “ethical” concern, precisely, does Adam Smith’s short announcement in Rock Paper Scissors raise? And what policy permits us to use this page to publicize that Mr. Smith’s writing raises ethical concerns? I don’t recall seeing a reliable source say that, there’s no reliable source cited above, and since Adam Smith’s photo and biography appear on the masthead page I expect he’s a living person. Adam Smith is the reviews editor of the site, he expressed an opinion, the site published it. That’s how publishing works. I suggest that you rephrase or strike. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not to put too fine a point on it, but the site is "Rock, Paper, Shotgun." That being said, I guess it might be argued that it's not really a positive review, but like MarkBernstein, I completely fail to see how it raises any ethical concern whatsoever. Should Depression Quest not be reviewed by anyone whose life has been touched by depression? I also agree that it borders on a BLP issue. Taking a step back, might this entire conversation be better situated at Depression Quest? Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- The issue as related to the GG situation (just for clarity) is that GG would state that because Adam Smith actually never played the game beyond looking at the title screen (per his review) but immediately praised the title for dealing with the topic of depression, he gave a positive review for it's message and not for gameplay, graphics, etc., what GG proponents would say are necessary as part of a proper "objective review". Focusing on the message instead of that, in their minds, is an ethical concern because the reviewer is putting message over material content and failing to serve what GG sees as the main gaming audience. Again, that's GG's line of logic, not mine, nor that of most other people; we have this logic already discussed in the article, just not discussed in any RS in the specific context of the DQ reviews. But for purposes of improving this article, there's not much else we can say to this. RS say that DQ had positive reviews, and we know there was some backlash from those reviews, but the clarity of the backlash would not come until GG got into full swing and the call for "objective reviews" came out. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- And we know all this... how, precisely? How do we know this is GG's line of logic? Does any reliable source say that this is or was GG's logic? Moreover, here on this talk page, a named individual is still being accused of hazy “ethical” transgressions which are neither specifically stated here nor supported by reliable sources. In point of fact, the reliable sources have indicated that the so-called “ethical” concerns you raise in the paragraph above are no such thing. Writers frequently express interest or excitement in forthcoming work because of its subject matter or authorship, and there is no reason to think this an ethical concern. Suggesting ethical concerns exist regarding the work of a specific writer, on the other hand, requires a specific standard of evidence called WP:BLP, and we're still waiting for that. Suggestion: it's time for this discussion to put on a hat. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, let's end this. And I know "it's about ethics in game journalism" has become the slogan for gamergate, but I am still a bit taken aback to see a specific, named person accused of ethical indiscretions by "failing to serve...the main gaming audience." Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- No BLP statement has been made here. I am not making any such accusation towards Adam, just that this is what GG would want people to think, and why this post came up in the first place about what someone claimed were poor quality reviews. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Masem, on balance I don't think this is a BLP issue, but for me, it comes uncomfortably close. If you were to report that "followers of 52-pickup-gate believe Dumuzid has committed several murders," I think you'd agree we'd have a problem despite sourcing such a claim. Dumuzid (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- No BLP statement has been made here. I am not making any such accusation towards Adam, just that this is what GG would want people to think, and why this post came up in the first place about what someone claimed were poor quality reviews. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes we have sources that explain - not specific to any review but reviews in general - that GG wants what they call "objective reviews" that ignore any messages or story or the like in games and focus on the gameplay, graphics, and mechanics. (eg , ). I'm only explaining that this is how the GG side thinks, for purposes of understanding for us editors of why anyone would question the claim that DQ was critically acclaimed, and how these DQ reviews would fall into GG's idea that there were ethical problems with these critics and sites. I am not stating from my own POV that there's any ethical issues here at all, only to describe the GG logic here. This information cannot be added because there's no appropriate sourcing to tie the DQ reviews to GG's "objective reviews", but only that this line of reasoning exists within GG, and we should be aware this does exists to prevent its addition without forthcoming sourcing. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- And dont forget the objective "how fun it is".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- But, no Masem, we do not need to take into any account gg's completely divorced from reality misconstruing of words. we are not their therapists nor a substitute for an educational system which has obviously greatly failed them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, let's end this. And I know "it's about ethics in game journalism" has become the slogan for gamergate, but I am still a bit taken aback to see a specific, named person accused of ethical indiscretions by "failing to serve...the main gaming audience." Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not to put too fine a point on it, but the site is "Rock, Paper, Shotgun." That being said, I guess it might be argued that it's not really a positive review, but like MarkBernstein, I completely fail to see how it raises any ethical concern whatsoever. Should Depression Quest not be reviewed by anyone whose life has been touched by depression? I also agree that it borders on a BLP issue. Taking a step back, might this entire conversation be better situated at Depression Quest? Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- What “ethical” concern, precisely, does Adam Smith’s short announcement in Rock Paper Scissors raise? And what policy permits us to use this page to publicize that Mr. Smith’s writing raises ethical concerns? I don’t recall seeing a reliable source say that, there’s no reliable source cited above, and since Adam Smith’s photo and biography appear on the masthead page I expect he’s a living person. Adam Smith is the reviews editor of the site, he expressed an opinion, the site published it. That’s how publishing works. I suggest that you rephrase or strike. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Peter is correct, reliable sourcing call the reviews positive. But we should be aware as editors that the review like that of RPS (first link above) is the type of review that triggered the ethical concerns of GG. No, we can't make that statement as no other source explicitly mentions that so it is otherwise OR, but we should be aware of that type of history is involved. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Our job is to reflect reliable sources, not research the claims they make. I suggest you read our policies about original research on WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is very interesting. In the Daily Dot Article NBSB references, the quote reads as follows (notice the embedded links as they were in the original quote): "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression, many gamers saw it differently." If we look at the first "review" linked (rockpapershotgun), there is no review at all. The author admits to have never played the game. The second review is indeed positive, yet the third piece from destructoid is merely a preview/description. The author gives no indication that he ever played the game, much less a review. So we have exactly one source that apparently misinterpreted other sources, and this is the basis for "nearly universal positive reviews"? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this seems to be jumping to conclusions not to mention misleading our readers. Thoughts? Cavalierman (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Aja Romano for the Daily Dot writes "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression..." Phil Savage for PC Gamer writes "Depression Quest is a particularly interesting pick. Developed by Zoe Quinn, it's a moving and revealing insight into what it's like to live with depression." You're welcome. Source: The citations directly after the phrasing you are criticising. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am not seeing where in the references Depression-Quest received "near-universal" positive reviews. As a matter of fact, can anyone provide more than one reliable source that gives DQ a positive review? I am excluding blogs and unreliable sources- I am talking about actual mainstream reviews and critics who received the game positively. I am only finding one. Cavalierman (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This seems extraneous to me. Isn't linking to the game's own entry enough? I don't see how that really affects this article. Dumuzid (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class video game articles
- Mid-importance video game articles
- WikiProject Video games articles
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Low-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press