Wikipedia

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

[edit]

All articles related to the Gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this page compromised from its original intent?

[edit]
Covered by the FAQ (Q4), nothing new to discuss here --Dronebogus (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the whole thing started because of lack of transparency in mainstream gaming journalism, which is why there is extensive distrust in gaming journalism in the hobby at the time of writing, before said journalists themselves (who have no agency in politics) tried painting everything in a social political light to shift the blame and cover their tracks of said dishonesty, all because a game dev tried sleeping with a journalist for a good review of a mediocre game.


With the announcement from the US government that Gamergate's political efforts was in part quietly paid for with tax payer money to further left leaning propaganda goals, such as that of Politico and a so-called "disinformation game", doesn't renaming the article from Gamergate controversy to Gamergate (harassment campaign) further skew the legitimacy of the article away from intellectual honesty of what Gamergate actually was and try to rewrite history by trying to paint it as a harassment campaign and nothing more serious than that?? Samalik16 (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? Reliable sources say GG was a harassment campaign against women and minorities. This is all redpiller Alex Jones bullshit. As for the taxpayer money thing, double WTH are you talking about? Something Elon Musk pulled out his ass? Dronebogus (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "reliable sources". Pretty much every source I could find that called GG a "harassment campaign" utilized a ton of selection bias. I mean, only a few of the Gamergaters actually harassed anyone. The majority of them were upset about the corruption in the video game industry.
When the topic is holding the media accountable for its BS, you can't trust the media. Do your own research, Samalik16. WikiFloath (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the FAQ at the top of this page, specifically Q4. Acroterion (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable sources that support either of the points "only a few of the Gamergaters actually harassed anyone." and "The majority of them were upset about the corruption in the video game industry." feel free to add them to the article. However, give you have dismissed every actual reliable source used already because of "selection bias", I would not expect this to be possible. Horep (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like reliable sources, please get off Wikipedia. We are not interested in replacing researched facts from reputable media outlets with random garbled nonsense from blogs. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. GG started because Erin Gjoni got dumped and tried to have his girlfriend harassed, but people laughed him out of the room. He came back with the "ethics in game journalism" angle, and used that to convince people to go after his ex. It was always a harassment campaign dressed up as "ethics".
The rest of your post about "paid for with taxpayer money" is based on biased misinformation being pushed by Elon Musk and his cronies. The second you look at their claims, it turns out they're blatantly misrepresenting what the money was used for (or are too stupid to actually understand what they're looking at, either is likely). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 February 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Withdrawn by requester. (non-admin closure) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate (harassment campaign) → Gamergate (campaign) – According to WP:QUALIFIER, only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used. There is no other notable campaign known as "Gamergate", therefore using (harassment campaign) as the disambiguator is redundant. Update: see my comment below. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose whitewashing. Dronebogus (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Support this change. WP:QUALIFIER is extremely clear cut on this. The previous rejections of Gamergate campaign seem to center on this idea that this name would be less clear, but this seems to directly contradict WP:PRECISION. Maybe people will be more inclined to remember Queen as a rock band, not a band, but we still title the article Queen (band). Campaign may also refer to a military campaign, but campaign is still widely understood within the context of an organized group of people doing politics. As far as "no additional value" is concerned, a shorter article title is easier to navigate to by virtue of being quicker to type. Accusations of whitewashing are flat out wrong, as the nom clearly does not suggest changing the article content to not refer to Gamergate as a harassment campaign and does not even make a WP:NPOV argument in favor of the move.
The soft part of my soft Support comes from my preference for a natural disambiguation, either Gamergate campaign or Gamergate movement, which both see a good bit of use on Google Scholar. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not this again. No, we have no reason to soften the name. The argument based on WP:QUALIFIER is misplaced: it is clearly labeled by reliable sources as a harassment campaign (not simply a "campaign"). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title is accurate and clearly identifies the topic. I was surprised to learn there are other topics and articles called "Gamergate". The disamb let me know this article covers the topic I expect with this title. "Campaign" alone is ambiguous and has multiple meanings. "Harassment campaign" is necessary to distinguish and this topic. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - current title is clear and explicit. Put down the stick, that is an ex-pony. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal will obviously not pass, but I object to the categorization of this proposal as WP:DEADHORSE. As far as I am aware, no previous discussion has proposed "Gamergate (campaign)" as a title before, making it separate from any previous debate on titling this article. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't formally withdraw this given that two editors have supported the nomination, but on second thoughts, I think Woodroar provides a convincing argument against the move: (campaign) is not commonly used as a disambiguator due to its ambiguous nature, such that (advertising campaign) is used as a disambiguator instead of plain (campaign). Consider this WP:WITHDRAWN. feminist🩸 (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Jeffrey34555: technically this should not be closed early because two editors have commented in support, but this is otherwise appropriate for a WP:SNOW closure. feminist🩸 (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference footnotes?

[edit]

I've discovered some sentences in this article have at least four or five references attached to them. Should we group said references using the {{efn}} with a note saying Attributed to multiple references: where necessary? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion is taking place at the moment, so I've implemented the {{efn}} template for now. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2025

[edit]

– The only other page named Gamergate has to do with ants, as a niche topic. Gamergate - the harassment campaign - is by far the most referenced "Gamergate"; any google search will confirm this. As such, the harassment campaign should be the main page. TypistMonkey (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 10:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support because nobody really cares about the ant outside of entomologists and a few random bug enthusiasts. The ant is obviously very important in its own right but we should cater to the average intelligent adult as indicated by principles like Wikipedia:Principle of least surprise, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Jargon, etc. Not that this is actually going to happen because of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, but I know from experience that if enough competent users repeatedly request something in good faith eventually the stonewalling has to crack. Dronebogus (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close no evidence presented anything has changed since last time [[1]]—blindlynx 13:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than the fact that it keeps happening, implying that the topic remains relevant and of more interest than the ant no layperson has ever heard of. Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its an ant caste not an "ant". Please at least take the time to understand the topic in discussion. Laypeople are not the deciding factor, as all the information for the harassment is now coming from experts as well.--Kevmin § 17:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An ant caste is an ant. That’s like arguing a cook isn’t a human because it’s a human occupation. Dronebogus (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that but reopening this just to have the same arguments over and over again is pointless. Last time we did this was less that a year ago, unless there is new evidence this is a waste of time—blindlynx 17:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom and above. Fade258 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The harassment campaign is the primary topic. Pageviews shows the harassment campaign has 94.6% of views, a ratio of >17:1 compared to the ant. There is no doubt that the harassment campaign is primary topic by usage and has been from the start. (This Pageviews includes a longer time period and the former page name.) It has notable spikes in interest, reflective of ongoing and recurring relevance. Many prior arguments focused on "recentism" and lack of enduring notability or longterm significance for the harassment campaign. The Gamergate harassment campaign began more than a decade ago and continues to be discussed on its own and in relation to current events. A Google Scholar search for publications since 2024 shows, on the first 5 pages, 4 publications about the ants while the remaining 46 cover the harassment campaign. "Gamergate" returns 1,500 Google Scholar hits while "Gamergate -videogame -game -Internet" returns only 126, some of which are still referencing the harassment campaign. The harassment campaign is written about in a range of social science and humanities disciplines internationally, in addition to popular media. Even Britannica has an entry on Gamergate (harassment campaign). After 10+ years, the harassment campaign has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with the term (WP:PT2).--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the myrmecological concept of gamergates lacks substantially greater enduring notability and educational value. The amount of search results or pageviews is not all that makes a topic notable - newsworthy events and controversies, by their very nature, will always receive far more coverage than other topics, regardless of enduring notability or educational value. That's like saying that any given plane crash is more notable and important than the flaps of the airplane - it's an apples and oranges comparison, of course there will be more general coverage and pageviews of an event than of a technical concept! The myrmecological use of the term gamergate predates the modern internet, is discussed in hundreds of academic texts, and will continue to see use as long as the few hundred ant species that produce gamergates still exist (so, long after anyone in this thread is dead and gone) - as a natural phenomenon, it is unlikely to ever become irrelevant. If that's not enduring, I don't know what is. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that both topics are important. I also agree that determining primary topic among totally unrelated topics requires some care, but this is something we do all the time on WP. The criteria on determining primary topic says there is no absolute rule but provides much guidance (WP:DPT).
    • I've already shared the WikiNav (in reply to Jts1882 below) and Pageviews data showing the harassment campaign has far more visits than ant currently and for more than a decade at this point.
    • I've shared Google Scholar data showing that the harassment campaign is widely written about in academic sources to this day, far more often than the ant. A Google Scholar search for gamergate returns 11,000 all-time hits. From 1983–2013, there were just 535 publications. There were more than 10,000 after 2014. All-time Google Scholar search for "gamergate"+"ant" returns just 1,140 hits.
    • Ngram shows an enormous rise in popularity for the term in books after 2014, with capitalization indicating much of the writing is about the harassment campaign.
    • News results unsurprisingly refer exclusively to the harassment campaign. Contrary to what has been asserted in prior RMs, not all recent coverage is a mere passing reference or historical foot note. For example: Salon (Feb 2025), CNN (Mar 2025), The Week (Aug 2024), Wired (Aug 2024—twice!).
    • The harassment campaign has 760 wikilinks in articles, compared to 72 for the ant—more than 10x. This is an indication of its widespread reach and relationship to topics covered across Wikipedia.
    WP:DPT is clear that historical age and first usage are not determinative of primary topic and that: A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience. The opposition to this move is not supported by Wikipedia policy and practice. Coverage of the ants is restricted to entomology and related publications both inside and outside Wikipedia and always has been. The harassment campaign has been widely covered in a range of sources and remains relevant to many subject areas for over a decade. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reiterate that assessing the primary topic in this case on the basis of numbers is fundamentally flawed and something that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC warns against. It doesn't feel particularly encyclopedic, or in any reader's best interest, to read PRIMARYTOPIC as privileging newsworthy events over established natural phenomena. Events, especially controversial and/or internet-based events, will obviously have outsized impacts on these metrics over scientific concepts. Establishing a primary topic when comparing two totally disparate topics like this should absolutely not rely solely on numbers - something that PRIMARYTOPIC explicitly mentions with the example of Apple Inc (the company) as a topic of "primary usage" and apple (the fruit) as a topic of "primary long-term significance". The harassment campaign may receive primary use but the myrmecological concept, as a well documented natural phenomenon observed in hundreds of species, has obvious long-term significance (enduring notability and educational value, as PRIMARYTOPIC puts it), and despite the outsized use of the term online being in reference to the harassment campaign about a fifth of the users visiting the disambiguation are still clicking through to the less popular use of the term. The word "gamergate" has no primary meaning among a general audience, even with the wealth of news and academic coverage of the online harassment campaign - most people who are not chronically online (a category I would argue most Wikipedia editors fall into) have never heard the word before in either context and will be surprised to learn of both meanings. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that everybody knows what an apple is while gamergate (ant) is an obscure, specialist topic. As a global, general audience, non-specialized encyclopedia, Wikipedia does 'privilege' subjects that are widely covered in diverse publications when assessing notability and primary topic. The ants themselves may be ancient but the subject has only been covered in a few hundred sources annually, mostly specialist publications, since the 1980s. (EDIT 18:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC): In fact, only a handful per year, per review of Google Scholar and JSTOR publications.) Gamergate (harassment campaign) has been the far more widely covered topic for one-quarter of the time the ants have been written about. To dismiss a topic such as this as 'unencylopedic' reveals a bias towards niche, specialist topics that is contrary to Wikipedia policy and practice—not to mention Britannica‍'s. The harassment campaign succeeds on every test and consideration at WP:DPT while arguments for the ant's co-primacy rest on assertions directly contradicted by the the guideline—that older topics of interest to specialists can never be overtaken by news events and social phenomena. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To dismiss a topic such as this as 'unencylopedic' reveals a bias towards niche, specialist topics that is contrary to Wikipedia policy and practice This is certainly not my position - I support the current disambiguation, not making the myrmecological concept the primary topic, on the basis that while the harassment campaign fulfills WP:PT1, its extensive use is not so great as to override the myrmecological concept's fulfillment of WP:PT2 (enduring notability and educational value). I do not believe either topic should be privileged, because both are of importance in their respective areas. I think you're taking a narrow reading of WP:DPT - DPT explicitly warns that metrics like WikiNav, Google(/Scholar) results, pageviews, and wikilink usage are flawed and should not be solely used to decide a primary topic. There is no primary meaning of the word "gamergate" among a general audience, and while the online harassment is likely to attract more attention, the amount of people seeking out the myrmecological use of the term is not so insubstantial that capital G Gamergate overwhelms all other usages. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was careful to specify "co-primary", as I do understand what you are arguing for. I have presented multiple lines of evidence that do show Gamergate overwhelms all other usages with at least a 100:1 ratio of scholarly publications (seemingly much higher) and an even greater dominance in other general audience publications. When all the tools for assessing significant, ongoing coverage show the same wide margin and it has been stable for >10 years, the consistent finding should not be discounted. I'm curious what threshold might satisfy the opponents here. Perhaps most people are not familiar with either subject, but surely many more are familiar with the harassment campaign, and many more are likely to encounter Gamergate in this context each day and turn to Wikipedia for more information. As the guideline states in another section: To be clear, it is not our goal to astonish our readers, and the topic that comes first to mind indeed often is suitable as the primary topic (WP:TITLEPTM). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another source comparison: JSTOR has 60 results for gamergate from 1983–2013 and 579 results from 2014–2025. I did not find an article about ants until p. 4 of the 2014–2025 results. A search for gamergate ant articles from 2014–2025 returns 72 results—notably, only four of the results on the first page are about the ants, the rest are about the harassment campaign.
    --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Again as noted by blindlynx--Kevmin § 17:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Previously discussed less than a year ago, with the consensus being "Not moved". Also previously discussed in 2014 (Not moved) and in 2015 (withdrawn after unanimous opposition.) 162 etc. (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the precise disambigation currently in use makes it easy for readers to find the version of the term "gamergate" that they're looking for, and I see no benefit to designating the harassment campaign as the primary topic. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Both are niche topics, even if one gets more coverage. The disambiguation makes it easy to find the correct topic. It also seems improper to keep raising this when it has been discussed many times. I'd suggest a better title would be Gamergate harassment campaign which is more descriptive and unambiguous.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The harassment campaign is certainly less "niche" as it's discussed in a range of disciplines and sources. More people will have heard of the harassment campaign, given its impact and continuous widespread coverage, and someone encountering the phrase for the first time and wanting to learn more is far more likely to hear it in this context than in the ant context. Wikinav shows that >75% of readers navigate to Gamergate (harassment campaign) from the DAB page while <20% navigate to the ant. This move would improve navigability for >3/4 of readers by taking them right to the page they want, while those looking for the ant would experience no change. Instead of landing at DAB page first and click on the ant article, they would land at the harassment article first and click to the ant from the hatnote. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gamergate the harassment campaign does not have the longterm significance to unseat the 40-year-old scientific term, regardless of popularity as an article. As for the arguments that entomology is niche, so are internet harassment campaigns. The average Joe is unlikely to know what either "Gamergate" are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The “average joe” is extremely likely to have no idea about the ant, but only somewhat unlikely to not know what “gamergate” the campaign is. Two topics not being universal household names doesn’t make them both equally obscure. Dronebogus (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per blindlynx. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since 2021, this article has dominated in terms of pageviews and news, surpassing the ant article by tens of thousands of views, as well as comprising of a supermajority of traffic redirect (over 75%!). Seeing most of the "oppose" arguments above, I do not believe that the disambiguation page helps in finding the correct topic; in fact, I would say it inconveniences the average person.
Think about it: the word "Gamergate" has the suffix "-gate", which to many people, reminds them of the Watergate scandal (or other controversies/scandals with the suffix -gate), not the ant group. Also, the mere fact that a person searches up "Gamergate" means that they must have heard this phrase somewhere, possibly in the news, a book, etc... Seeing that most of the books and articles reference the harrassment campaign (and shown in the WikiNav), I dare say that this article is the WP:PTOPIC of "Gamergate". Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the disambiguation page inconveniences readers - either they land on the disambigation page and spend one extra click navigating to the topic they were looking for (and learn of an interesting alternate use of the term "gamergate"), or they navigate to the exact topic they were looking for when using the Wikipedia searchbar thanks to the disambiguator.
Reiterating what I said in a comment above, views and news coverage are not the only measure of notability, and to compare a controversial event to a natural phenomenon in these terms is inherently flawed. Those metrics are biased in favour of events and biased against "boring" but important technical concepts - not an encyclopedic approach. ~17% (about a fifth) of pageviews going to the myrmecological concept demonstrates that, while it will naturally receive fewer views than the controversy, a substantial portion of readers were looking for the less popular usage of the word despite the overwhelming popular coverage of the harassment campaign. Previous discussions + the present discussion in this move request shows no consensus that either the harassment campaign or the myrmecological concept has (per PRIMARYTOPIC, emphasis mine) substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It actually seems very strange to me that a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is somehow not the primary article. If I search even on Google Scholar, I have to go all the way to page 5 to get even one article about ants. This feels like a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may have formed here that isn't in keeping with the global WP:DISAMBIG guideline. Loki (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kind of per Loki and WP:CCC; a LOCON seems to exist that doesn't seem to reflect the SIGCOV reflected in multiple HQRS. Pace, the ant caste *facepalm* It also looks like Dronebogus's prediction has come true. Happy days, —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Obviously true, but per Loki and Drone. Not sure why this is controversial. Parabolist (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; Overwhelmingly the primary topic. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe the ant article (Gamergate (ant)) could plausibly be merged into the page on Ant colony, which would result in a ~50k byte article if merged verbatim. The latter is suffering from the typical "early Wikipedia general-biology article" syndrome, so it'd be nice for it to receive an overhaul (it needs copyediting and more citations, given that the study of eusocial insects is a rather large topic in biology, hence why the ant gamergate term was even coined in the first place).Anthropophoca (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per PRIMARYTOPIC. The harrassment campaign is many times more the target of our readers. We serve the readers. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The endemic systemic bias of Wikipedia editors towards the perspective of a terminally online Western audience should be resisted not embraced. Binksternet writes above, The harassment campaign is many times more the target of our readers. We serve the readers. No, No, Never. We serve everyone. However, we should be especially mindful to serve the needs of those who are not our readers. We must not be an encyclopedia for the rich. The only topic with long term significance is the ant and that topic should be at the undisambiguated Gamergate, as it once was. CIreland (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only topic with long term significance is the ant is very clearly not true. I don't know how the editors here have convinced themselves of this. It's over a decade after the harassment campaign and it is by far the clear primary topic even among recent sources. If I search for gamergate on Google Scholar and include only results since 2024, I don't get a result about ants until page 3.
    Just because something is a major news story doesn't mean it lacks long term significance. WP:RECENTISM does not mean "news" (or "the internet"): many big political news stories and controversies have huge long term significance. The type of ant also has long term significance, but very clearly historians of the internet and of politics are still going to be talking about Gamergate 50 years from now, and probably in greater numbers than anyone is talking about the type of ant. Loki (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You and several other editors in opposition are trying to right a great wrong—or prevent one—based on your perspective on what WP should be and which subjects should be prioritized. This is fundamentally at odds with the project. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 12:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is about importing issues external to the project and using Wikipedia as a battleground for those issues. WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS is a long acknowledged internal issue that is widely understood to be something to be guarded against if we are to maintain a neutral point of view. The narrowness of Wikipedia's social and cultural demographic is a long recognised problem and there have been countless efforts both on en.wiki and by the Foundation to mitigate it. It seems every other week I get watchlist notice about some project or other effort to universalise Wikipedia's perspective and coverage beyond that of the majority of its editor base. Countering systemic bias is not some fringe concern for the encyclopedia: it has been a perpetual effort almost since the project's inception and our tendency to over-favour the perspective or a Western internet generation has been one of the canonical examples of that bias. CIreland (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree that countering systemic bias is important. Nothing in that essay addresses the P&G-based determination that the harassment campaign is primary. The arguments against reflect a POV that favors natural phenomena and “hard science” over the diverse disciplines and publications that cover the harassment campaign. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that "clearly" people will be talking about Gamergate in 50 years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and if people really are talking about it in 50 years and it is equally as popular, there would definitely be an argument for it being primary. But we are not psychics who can predict that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that's not my whole argument. You missed the part where I pointed out that people are still clearly talking about it 10 years after it happened. That's already long term relevance. Loki (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What many of us are saying is that the harassment campaign is more widely discussed and has been for 10+ years, and not “just” by the chronically online. To require 50 years just because the ant was described first is out of step with policy and practice and is a new standard I’ve not seen in any other DPT discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Myceteae. – Supertian8 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, same as last time. I favour GamerGate as a natural disambiguation. See ngrams. Improving internal navigability should not be our only concern, especially when most visitors get to our articles via other routes. Landing at the dab page in this case is the good kind of astonishment, the astonishment of learning that the term "gamergate" actually already existed for an ant caste before it was coined for something else. It's informative (like Imamate of Yemen that I recently created per a discussion). I would be surprised if many people were annoyed by it. Srnec (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per blindlynx. Gamergate as a disambiguation works as it is. Eilidhmax (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'll say what I said last time, because I don't think it has changed: The harassment campaign article currently gets more views than the ant article. And given the campaign's influence on the alt-right and later harassment and disinformation campaigns, I don't see that interest disappearing tomorrow or next year—but I also can't see it staying relevant forever. Every retrospective I've read puts it firmly in the past, not an ongoing event. The ant was named first and gamergate ants will almost certainly outlast the relevance of the harassment campaign, Wikipedia itself, and probably humans. I don't think it's a burden for searchers to land at a disambiguation page where they can see options for the harassment campaign and ant, or for the Adventure Time character or note about GamersGate. I mean, to be fair, the camelcase GamerGate redirect should probably go to the disambiguation page as well, just to help dispel that confusion. Woodroar (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]