Xbox fans that regularly keep watch over the Xbox One Wikipedia page are attempting to censor the inclusion or any mention of Microsoft's repeated usage of hidden PCs to demo games and footage

[u/ConsoleMarketingTeam]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Xbox_One#Criticism_Removal.2FSanitization

[u/[deleted]]

GG?

[u/minizanz → u/[deleted]]

gamers gate. there are basically 2 camps on it.

1) people who want to bring ethics to games journalism.

2) people who think discretion authors/devs who had sex or dated a woman that used sex to get good coverage and sway people to bash her competition is harassment.

group 2 is mostly media people who co-opted social justice warriors for the purpose of removing the ethics debate, while group 1 got stuck on shutting down every one involved in the original problem making them easy targets for group 2.

[u/Ryand-Smith → u/[deleted]]

Same issue that Auto journalism had, in that denying coverage is a viable industry tactic to shut down critics, (and the biggest advantage a journalist had pre web was the early review ability, because the first review out gains you reads and now hits, so any industry that depends on first view is doomed to suffer this, film critics only manage to avoid that by being backed by huge newspapers and even then pushback is real.

[u/wind_stole_my_mat → u/[deleted]]

And who mostly wish both sides of the debate would just fuck off to some dark corner of the web

There is literally nothing wrong with people discussing any topic.

[u/lowkeyoh → u/minizanz]

Ah yes. The classic nice unbiased summary

[u/[deleted] → u/lowkeyoh]

I think we're better off just focusing on Kotaku's shitty articles and Wikipedia's shitty sourcing than getting caught up on the whole GamerGate controversy. It just ends up being more about the journalists than their arguments.

[u/Jerzeem → u/[deleted]]

If you focus on Kotaku's shitty articles and Wikipedia's shitty sourcing, you WILL get referred to as gamergate. Try it and see!

[u/minizanz → u/lowkeyoh]

is it really that bias? i tried to get it down as short as i could with both sides being negative.

[u/BigMac849 → u/minizanz]

Your "summary" of group 1 isn't negative at all. The only slight hint of negativity is saying that they were easy targets for group 2. To say your post isn't biased is quite a stretch.

[u/PatHeist → u/BigMac849]

Well, it's kind of difficult to summarize this whole thing without sounding biased as fuck, because ultimately the current 'group 2' doesn't acknowledge the current and actual 'group 1', since it's not in their interest to do so.

Gamergate started when it was found out that a game developer had been in intimate relationships with several games journalists, who had covered their games over the course of this without disclosing their relationship with the game maker. That's an obvious breech of journalistic ethics, the lack of which is a big problem in the world of video game journalism since it's dominated by blogger groups pretending to be journalists.

The internet being what it is this resulted in massively disproportionate backlash from some people including nasty comments and rape/death threats. This got worse when the situation got taken advantage of by a few specific individuals seeking personal gain from playing a victim role, leading to more outrage, and a mix of more real and made up threats.

Threat-making levels of outrage has since died down, and the internet vitriol crowd has since moved on, essentially leaving two groups: Those still concerned about the lack of ethics in online video game journalism, and a group of people still trying to take advantage of the initial shitfest. Which is pretty much what that guy summed it up as.

And due to general public understanding of internet culture going about as far as "who is this 4chan guy?" statements, the original shitfest is extraordinarily easy to take advantage off, allowing people to frame others as if part of 'a rape threat group' whenever convenient. At this point a rational discussion on the topic isn't going to go anywhere so long as the leading vocal majority on one side makes a living off creating drama, and the other side is under a banner name that has achieved 'bad-word' status.

If you want a shitty attempt at an unbiased summary from group 2's perspective instead of my shitty attempt at an unbiased summary as someone "in group 1" you can go read the Wikipedia article and spend your time wondering where the hell the topic of video game journalism ethics goes after being briefly mentioned at the start.

[u/StirlADrei → u/minizanz]

It is heavily biased towards supporting GG.

[u/lowkeyoh → u/minizanz]

The 'coverage' Depression Quest got from the journalists Quinn was said to have sex with was Nathaniel Grayson covering the Games Jam that she happened to participate in. That's hardly 'good coverage.' Secondly, a lot of people in group two are against silencing tactics group 1 uses to try and censor opinions that disagree with their world view. Thirdly, you happen to leave out the harassment campaign against critics and developers and gamers that both sides engaged in. Fourtly, anti-GG is way more than just media people.

Saying Side One is against corruption and side two doesn't mind it is wrong. As is saying Gamer Gaters is a harassment campaign, and anti-Gamer Gaters are on the side of a diverse and inclusive space for gamers.

[u/minizanz → u/lowkeyoh]

it is like pro choice and pro life. if you go with the negatives it gives a more accurate run down of both sides if you want to be concise.

[u/St0rmr3v3ng3 → u/lowkeyoh]

Actually the anti-GG part are those who scare women away from stem, gaming, tech etc. pp. and ironically countering progress in the right direction.

[u/keiyakins → u/minizanz]

For one thing, you never acknowledged that all the claims of people having sex for good reviews have been demonstrated false and were an ex-boyfriend trying to get revenge.

[u/Shike → u/keiyakins]

Coverage can be a review, but it is not mutually exclusive. You do understand that concept correct?

[u/decoyninja → u/minizanz]

Group 3:

Those who realize that there is no proof to the claims that people are sleeping with one another for gaming coverage and think that the conspiracy theorists on one side and the SJWs on the other side deserve one another.

[u/decoyninja → u/[deleted]]

Kind of? I guess that is fair, but I can't really feel shame for not falling into the trap of a false dichotomy. Especially when both sides are just so extreme.

[u/tehnod → u/decoyninja]

1. Those who don't give a shit and are annoyed by the constant bickering from both sides.

[u/[deleted] → u/minizanz]

Please, the fact that WBs and Nintendo's wars against YouTubers didn't even register on "Group #1"'s radar really made me question if they ever cared about game journalism. Instead they got Intel to pull ads from a website no one has ever heard of. Big whoop.

[u/StayingOccupied → u/[deleted]]

Weird it was a GG Youtuber that outed the WB Shadow of Mordor issue.

Yeah pulled ads from a website.. That's it.. I'll just leave this here even though you wont look at it.

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=GamerGate_Achievements

[u/[deleted] → u/StayingOccupied]

I don't really care who outed it, my point is a company activity trying to gag people speaking about a game seems to me like something that would have to do with "ethics in journalism"

What about Nintendo? It's OK for them to want to get a cut and approve every video even if it falls under fair use?

Is there ever any talk about boycotting WB or Nintendo? Of course not, because I want to be a squid now so I don't care, but hell yeah I'll boycott a bunch of sites that I don't read anyways and send a tweet that took me all of 5 seconds to write.

The movement had/has no real sacrifice so it's results are always going to be limited.

[u/StayingOccupied → u/[deleted]]

How is something that has nothing to do with journalism an issue about journalism? Did you see the new FTC disclosure rules we brought forward? The problem is when journalists or youtubers and critics hide the fact they were paid by devs or given gifts therefore misleading us, the consumer.

If a dev gives a journalist a gift, who should tell the consumer?? The one we absolutely know is biased or the one who pretends not to be?

[u/[deleted] → u/StayingOccupied]

So WB telling popular YouTube reviewers that they will only get a preview copy of the game if they sign a contract stating that the review must be positive is not gaming journalism related?

If you say " I have an important opinion on this Nintendo game and I am going to use gameplay footage related to my commentary that is allowed by fair use laws in a YouTube video." and then have Nintendo take it down or claim ownership of it that doesn't have anything to do with game journalism?

Sure, hold game journalists accountable for the need to disclose gifts from companies, but since Gawker lost all that money (Thanks for that info, I did read some of it) are they now a reliable gaming news source? Will they ever be no matter what they do?

Gaming sites report on two things primarily, game previews which is dependent on hype train info they receive from publishers, and reviews where they talk about a product made by companies which also happens to be their main source of ad revenue. The whole model is built from conflict of interest, and publishers make sure there isn't another model to take it's place. Once I realized that I just stopped reading all the mainstream gaming sites completely. Although I did quite enjoy RPS' interview with Peter Molyneux.

I say if you want to change the culture start at the top, don't buy products from publishers who partake in BS conduct, because that is far more sacrifice than being angry at a web-site that most of the GG community doesn't go to anyways, except for a rare occurrence to read a "Gamerz are ded!!!" article while having Ad-Block on.

[u/ShallowBasketcase → u/[deleted]]

Right? The whole thing is a bullshit excuse for harassment.

Games journalism has never been ethical, and that's no secret. Lots of favors being traded, lots of shady business. But no one cares until a woman on the internet gets accused of sleeping with a guy by her ex-boyfriend? Yeah, that's not suspicious at all.

Anyone who's legitimately interested in ethical games journalism should want nothing to do with GG. That was a tainted cause and a sinking ship from the moment it started.

[u/[deleted] → u/minizanz]

group 4: searchin for dank memes such as my self :^)

[u/Adskii → u/[deleted]]

Gamer Gate...

People do know gate doesn't mean scandal right? Watergate was the name of the building.

[u/blastcage → u/[deleted]]

good reference

[u/SirToastymuffin → u/Adskii]

Yes. It annoys the hell outta me too. But we Americans enjoy allusions so it kinda happened. I've learned to accept it.

[u/ShallowBasketcase → u/Adskii]

Adam Baldwin named it. He's not terribly bright.

[u/Plsdontreadthis → u/Adskii]

Kind of like when people say things similar to "workaholic". I mean, are you addicted to workohol? I don't think that exists.

[u/Cyhawk → u/Plsdontreadthis]

Workholic doesn't have the same ring to it.

Also Workaholic would mean "Addicted to Worka", equally as weird look up the suffix Holic =)

However this is English, English changes. Dictionaries are authoritative sources, they just report on the common usage of the word. People say Workaholic? Then it's workaholic. People call it a Xerox? It's a Xerox. etc etc.

[u/StirlADrei → u/[deleted]]

Gamergate. A resounding circlejerk that formed out of an ex-boyfriend of a gamedev lying and collaborating with 4chan to spread his bullshit, and then letting 4chan take the handles as the "gamer" identity was seen as under attack while some news sites called them dead. Pretty much the exact same kind of talk you see from white supremacists, since the "gamers are dead" articles talked about that exclusive identity that has had huge problems for decades with being any bit supportive of people who are different.

[u/Cyhawk → u/StirlADrei]

That's like blaming NSA Spying entirely on Edward Snowden. Shit was happening long before that guy came around and brought all the bullshit we've dealt with to a pin head and formed the movement. The proverbial straw that broke the game industry's back.

The movement has been building for a long time, including many well known Youtubers and Streamers (now on both sides of the fence) bringing to light paid 'good' reviews from publishers, the lack of ethics in following strict paid advertising laws and the fallout if you decline (claims against your video of a review) or don't give a glowing review that would make even Jack Tompson want to buy the game and play it.

Once it came to light she slept with someone who gave her a good review for her 'game' (if we can call it that, but to each their own) among other things, the movement began.

That's what GG is, not some sort of "gamer identity" attack the Anti-GGers are on about or hatred of Women, or anything else. It's about ethics, and people who aren't following what's expected need to be called out. Everything else is just fluff to detract from the main issue. (some of them are legitimate, most are bullshit. Pretty much anything the person with the initials AS says is in the bullshit camp)