This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 18 December 2014 (→top: now live). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:14, 18 December 2014 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) (→top: now live)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| Skip to table of contents |
 | 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. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gamergate (harassment campaign) at the Reference desk. |
| 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 the following 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. |
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 9 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  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy)
See /RFC1
- RFC closing statement: "There is a general feeling here that the article does have a slight bias, however, the point is also made that this seems to reflect the reliable sources available."
Sanctions enforcement
All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions
Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement
Laurie Penny's "Uppity Cunts": Any rephrasing ideas?
User:Retartist is now the second editor to have misread the quote from Penny as an actual attack on feminists instead of obvious sarcasm. Is there anyway we could phrase this better, so readers don't make the same mistake?Bosstopher (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- That was sarcasm? I really couldn't tell, These people cut a fine line and i don't really believe sarcasm since the "Bring back bullying" quote that gawker claimed was a joke. Retartist (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why should we even include such a sarcastic remark? It's a problematic quote with people misreading it. I don't think it's worthy of an encyclopedia. I'd say replace it with another point from Penny or just remove it altogether, it'll help us cut another Boing Boing source. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- i see it as caustic, not sarcastic. and in keeping with the attacks. Offer alternate suggestions below: -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why should we even include such a sarcastic remark? It's a problematic quote with people misreading it. I don't think it's worthy of an encyclopedia. I'd say replace it with another point from Penny or just remove it altogether, it'll help us cut another Boing Boing source. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Options
- Offer alternatives
- 1) In an essay condemning the attacks and the ideology behind them, the feminist journalist and author Laurie Penny wrote that the attackers hold a belief that "The problem is that women are creating culture, changing culture, redefining culture, and those cunts, those poisonous cunts, those disgusting, uppity cunts must be stopped."
- 2) Remove quote completely, satisfying the quotefarm cleanup.
- 3) Something like "Feminist journalist and author Laurie Penny rejected what she characterised as the extremely misogynistic ideology of the Gamergate attacks in blunt terms." This focuses on replicating the opinion of a notable feminist commentator without contributing to the quote farm.
discussion
- Option 2: Removal makes the most sense - it is by a person not at all involved in the situation, and it only repeats the same attitude already established in the paragraph; we don't need yet another attacking opinion added on. Add that it is a weak source for this type of article (boing boing) and removal is even a more sensible option. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- clearly not. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED. this is one quote whose essence cannot be parsed in alternate language. there are plenty of other quotes of duplicative nature and easily summarized and combined that would better satisfy cleaning of the quotefarm. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ignoring the "cunt" part, the attitude expressed in the quote is the same as those already in the section by people more directly involved in the GG situation, so this is not giving the reader any more new information or a new unique viewpoint that must be shared. It is difficult to judge what the intent of the "cunt" part of the quote (whether it is sarcasm or pure bitterness, as already demonstrated), but either way, that part of the quote is not the reason to remove, as correctly identified, NOTCENSORED would allow us to keep the quote otherwise if it provided more value. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- why would we ignore the "cunt" part? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm arguing in that we should ignore the fact the quote uses "cunt" (aka recognizing NOTCENSORERED applies) in terms of saying that's a reason the quote has to go or stay. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- why would we ignore the "cunt" part? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ignoring the "cunt" part, the attitude expressed in the quote is the same as those already in the section by people more directly involved in the GG situation, so this is not giving the reader any more new information or a new unique viewpoint that must be shared. It is difficult to judge what the intent of the "cunt" part of the quote (whether it is sarcasm or pure bitterness, as already demonstrated), but either way, that part of the quote is not the reason to remove, as correctly identified, NOTCENSORED would allow us to keep the quote otherwise if it provided more value. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- clearly not. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED. this is one quote whose essence cannot be parsed in alternate language. there are plenty of other quotes of duplicative nature and easily summarized and combined that would better satisfy cleaning of the quotefarm. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Option 2. It's a good quote, but since we have resolved to clean up the quote farm I think the article will be fine without it. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- in cleaning up the quote farm, the strategy would be to remove the bad quotes, not the good quotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- There are no bad quotes, only bad web sites. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- in cleaning up the quote farm, the strategy would be to remove the bad quotes, not the good quotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem here is our poor writing. I'm not convinced this particular essay, powerful as it is, needs to be quoted directly; aren't we trying to get rid of the quote farm? but if it is quoted in this article the reader must be given to understand that Laurie Penny is reappropriating language that has been used to exclude women, and not attacking women herself. Without vital contextual information, and sometimes even with it, many quotes are of little use. --TS 03:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have a preference for "Feminist journalist and author Laurie Penny rejected what she characterised as the extremely misogynistic ideology of the Gamergate attacks in blunt terms." If we were writing an article about Penny or about feminist opinion journalism, we might comment more on her trenchant and graphic language, but here there is much more material and we probably shouldn't showcase personalities more than absolutely necessary. --TS 03:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd rather go for a more general description of Penny's criticism, than dropping the c-bomb for what seems like shock value. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just for shock value. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- (e/c) I think the actual use of the "c-bomb" appropriately places tone and tenor of her comment in relation to the on line communities she is discussing. When discussing trolling, whitewashing their severe nature does not appropriately represent the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Cunt" would be fine if she wasn't sarcastic. But because she was sarcastic, misinterpretations occur in what could be seen as a WP:BLP violating edit. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The article already quotes threats made by trolls to Zoe Quin, removing this quote (which isn't even a direct quote of a threat), is hardly whitewashing.Bosstopher (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see no problem with removal of the quote, the article doesn't particularly need it. Artw (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd go with Option 2 first, otherwise Option 3, with Option 1 eliminated. My reasoning are in my posts above. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Data analysis
No one's yet explained why this is being rejected. It's by an expert. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Going to Oxford University does not make everything you write about the subject you study a reliable source. Bosstopher (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's a self-published blog, which can be considered a reliable source in certain situations,
when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
There is no evidence that's the case here. Furthermore, the author's argument makes a number of unsupported leaps of faith. For example, the author statesA hate group would have a high degree of centrality, very often centered around a charismatic leader.
Who says this, and that statement is based upon what research? The author doesn't say. No relevant sources which would support his characterization of the networks of hate groups are cited, and he is not, based on any available information, an expert in how hate groups are organized. Thus, this statement is nothing more than a bald assertion, and removing it topples the whole house of cards — if you don't truly know what the network characteristics of hate groups look like, you have nothing to compare Gamergate's network characteristics to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Time to finally move the article back to semi-protect?
Does anyone oppose having the article moved backed to semi-protected and its contents replaced with that of the draft? There hasn't been any serious edit warring on the draft for a while, GamerGate seems to finally be winding down, a lot of people have been topic banned, and from what I can see people on reddit and 8chan have stopped caring as much about this article and the accompanying ArbCom case. Bosstopher (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hope springs eternal... I'm provisionally inclined to support this proposal. Let's consider making a formal request, though. Anyone can put up a request on the appropriate page (shortcut WP:RFPP if memory serves me). If you could link back to this discussion, however it may turn out, it would help any admin to make an informed decision. I'd also advise notifying the original protecting admin of this discussion, though that's not strictly necessary. --TS 18:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok I've started a request. Bosstopher (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Now on semiprotection per Bosstopher's request. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok I've started a request. Bosstopher (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Recasting the lede second sentence
New wording, and note that I've split it into two sentences because it seemed natural to break out the culture war aspect into its own sentence. Nearly all media commentary refers to the disgusting attacks. Quite a lot of it relates that to Kulturkampf. I've also taken note of potential confusion about which "commentators" we're talking about.
- While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the great majority of media commentary has focused on the attacks conducted under the #gamergate hashtag, which have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic. Gamergate is often seen as a manifestation of a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.
Being bold in the draft. Have at it. --TS 20:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- After the word "misogynistic" we need to add the phrase "although the only data analysis published in reliable sources states that the overwhelming majority of tweets are "undetermined" and fail to meet the algorithm's criteria for negative." Bramble window (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well that is not going to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Far too much to worry about even if we could say that for the lede. Conciseness in the lede is very important and that's sidetracking the issue. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think TS's suggestion is an improvement, his second sentence is still putting too much certainty into WP's voice. I suggest changing it to, "Commentators in the media see it as a manifestation of a culture war against women and diversification of gaming culture." Later in the intro I think we can add a sentence along the lines of what Bramble suggests above. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- No we are NOT going to add content that contradicts the essence of the source itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Each of us gets a vote, RedPen, and each of our votes is equal to the others. Please relax and enjoy the process. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've been around long enough to know that we don't vote. Original research doesn't get a vote. --TS 02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- TS, your opinion on how to interpret and use the source counts as one opinion. So does mine. We don't spend time here trying to disenfranchise each other's opinions, because that it contrary to the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages. We give our opinions and the consensus is what goes into the article. About the only exception is BLP concern. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone's opinion who says that the source which states "Is GamerGate About Media Ethics or Harassing Women? Harassment, the Data Shows" should be used to state otherwise is an opinion that will be discounted as being irrelevant. WP:V. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- TS, your opinion on how to interpret and use the source counts as one opinion. So does mine. We don't spend time here trying to disenfranchise each other's opinions, because that it contrary to the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages. We give our opinions and the consensus is what goes into the article. About the only exception is BLP concern. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've been around long enough to know that we don't vote. Original research doesn't get a vote. --TS 02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Each of us gets a vote, RedPen, and each of our votes is equal to the others. Please relax and enjoy the process. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- The last sentence is clearly implied as a "opinion of the masses" and not as a fact (using "is seen as..." language to defer any implication it is WP's voice stating that. I'm not worried about it. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- No we are NOT going to add content that contradicts the essence of the source itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- After the word "misogynistic" we need to add the phrase "although the only data analysis published in reliable sources states that the overwhelming majority of tweets are "undetermined" and fail to meet the algorithm's criteria for negative." Bramble window (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Reads fine to me. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The final sentence is intended to indicate a sizable fraction of informed media opinion. If there's a better way to say that commentators often see this event as a symptom of Kulturkumpf, please edit the draft. --TS 02:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
New Erik Kain piece
This is a pretty good piece overall. I believe his characterization of it as about the increasingly oppositional relationship between gaming press and the gaming audience is a very good summation of the issue that has been provided in other reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, an article that gives some good information on the "other side." This should help us to balance out and improve this article some. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- We already cite Erik Kain's opinions in this article more than any other single commentator, so I would object to giving his viewpoints even more weight than they are already accorded. However, there's surely some recentism in his other quotes/mentions that we can probably trim to give this "perspective" piece space, because it presents a cogent and arguable take on the movement with some time and distance away from the initial kerfuffle. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
He's evolving and here repudiates some of his earlier opinions, but I note that his "gamers versus journalists" line has had little traction. I'm inclined to give him a line or two as perhaps one of the few observers who see Gamergate as something where journalists are the provocateurs, though as the majority have also observed, strangely the harm is nearly always done to women, and seldom at the hand of journalists.
Note that I'm currently trying to hack the quote farm into something fit for Misplaced Pages, and I'm also trimming opinion journalism heavily. So within those tight constraints a sentence or two will count for enough to satisfy due weight. --TS 01:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- In working on historical articles (like WW2, for example), there often are many more sources, sometimes like 10 times more, that give the English-speaking POV over the non-English speaking POV. So, when I was working on those articles sometimes I needed to give more weight to certain sources in order to make sure both sides had a balanced treatment in the narrative. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, but he's just this guy, you know? He's not from another country, he sees the same data the other commentators see. I'm not going to quibble about history articles, but if there are issues of systemic bias here they won't be resolved by simply giving one guy more weight than dozens of other commentators whose opinions, it seems to me, match the facts of a highly misogynistic campaign of harassment. --TS 02:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- As discussed previously, "balance" does not mean "equality." Balance is specifically found by giving due weight to viewpoints based upon their prevalence in reliable sources. If, in your opinion, the reliable sources themselves are unbalanced due to some sort of bias, that is not a problem Misplaced Pages is chartered to solve. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Gamergater
This monolithic and conveniently revertible block of recent edits is my attempt to replace awkward references to Gamergate supporters with a consistent terminology that mirrors everyday usage. If you think "Gamergater" isn't quite the right word, do revert. It's just a style change, and is offered as an attempt to make the article easier to read. --TS 02:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Should we be consistent on Gamergate vs GamerGate? Tarc (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's something that's been nagging at me for some time. I don't care which but we should choose one and stick to it everywhere except when quoting a source that spells it differently. Personally I'd vote for small g to match the article title. — Strongjam (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I too prefer the small g, mainly because use of camel case is very unusual in English. I tried to change to Gamergate and Gamergater as I went, but that's pretty difficult in Chrome on an Android tablet so I wasn't as thorough as I'd have liked. --TS 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I used an external text editor that has case sensitive search to move all "GamerGate" text to "Gamergate" that was outside of quotes or reference names. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Identifying material that has fallen to the spell of Recentism
Identifying material that's been given too much weight because it loomed larger at an earlier stage can be tricky, but I think it may be worth trying to get consensus on the bits that are now starting to look "too fat" or that have coverage but don't really seem to go anywhere.
I don't expect we'd all agree on exactly what counts, but I think we might at first look at what criteria to use. Did the inconclusive nature of the GameJournoPros affair count against our quite detailed coverage? It's hardly ever mentioned outside Breitbart and one or two other fringe political websites. Do we spend too much space covering the endless and largely uniform opinions of the pundits? Do the Fine Young Capitalists merit so much space, given that their role was quite incidental? I'm inclined to support all three suggestions, but I'd like to see what other editors' opinions on this are. -TS 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've trimmed some of the punditry quotes around the "ethics" issue, as there's only so many ways to say "there is no ethics issue." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I carried on trimming. Seems to be a better read now, at least. We may soon be able to remove the quote farm tag. --TS 08:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be all for removing The Fine Young Capitalists entirely, or paring it down to a single sentence at most, since they seem to just be one incidental group that attached themselves to this and not particularly significant in the scope of the larger controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Fine Young Capitalists has it's own page, pretty much entirely dedicated to Gamergate related material. Either that should go or the mentions here should consist of a single sentence and a link. Artw (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be all for removing The Fine Young Capitalists entirely, or paring it down to a single sentence at most, since they seem to just be one incidental group that attached themselves to this and not particularly significant in the scope of the larger controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I carried on trimming. Seems to be a better read now, at least. We may soon be able to remove the quote farm tag. --TS 08:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't we need to do a history merge, not just a c&p?
I see that the latest edits from Draft:Gamergate controversy were added to this article, but doesn't doing it that way break the GFDL, since we're losing attribution? Tarc (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right. I've tagged the page as requiring a history merge per WP:HM. — Strongjam (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually not. When we merge Page 1 into Page 2, it's not always possible to do a history merge, so we're allowed just to leave an edit summary of "Merging stuff from ]". It's normal at that point to redirect 1 to 2, which allows us to keep it for attribution purposes without worrying about the second page sitting around and getting found by Special:Random. It's a lot easier, especially as there were occasional edits here while the draft was being worked on; a history merge would have resulted in very-convoluted diffs at some points, e.g. this. Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Thanks for taking care of it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually not. When we merge Page 1 into Page 2, it's not always possible to do a history merge, so we're allowed just to leave an edit summary of "Merging stuff from ]". It's normal at that point to redirect 1 to 2, which allows us to keep it for attribution purposes without worrying about the second page sitting around and getting found by Special:Random. It's a lot easier, especially as there were occasional edits here while the draft was being worked on; a history merge would have resulted in very-convoluted diffs at some points, e.g. this. Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class video game articles
- High-importance video game articles
- WikiProject Video games articles
- C-Class Feminism articles
- Mid-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class Internet culture articles
- High-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press