It's November 2024, Wikipedians are still arguing for pages about Gamergate

[journo]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Not really clued into Gamergate, nor do I really want to be. But I do know that it had a stupid amount of influence on Wikipedia. You would think they would stop arguing about it. But they haven't.

Seems the latest argument is whether to call it a 'harassment campaign' in the title or the not. If 'harassment campaign' is in the article title, it leaves room for some 'non-harassment' Gamergate article. If it's not in the title, it establishes Gamergate as more important than an asexual ant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(ant).

Hard choices!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=llOn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ericbarbour]

Not really clued into Gamergate, nor do I really want to be. But I do know that it had a stupid amount of influence on Wikipedia. You would think they would stop arguing about it. But they haven't.

It will NEVER end. Uncountable thousands of butthurt incel gamer nerds want to edit the relevant WP content, and they are repeatedly banned off, and keep returning under new sock accounts. "Anyone Can Edit" bites the wikianoids in the ass over and over.

[Cla68]

Was Gamergate the first article in Wikipedia in which they locked down the talk/discussion page so only established editors could participate? If so, it has set a precedent, and now many other articles on politics have also semi-protected the talk page. It reminds me of mainstream media outlets who have turned off the comments on their social media accounts, because they didn't like the feedback they were getting.

[journo]

Was Gamergate the first article in Wikipedia in which they locked down the talk/discussion page so only established editors could participate? If so, it has set a precedent, and now many other articles on politics have also semi-protected the talk page. It reminds me of mainstream media outlets who have turned off the comments on their social media accounts, because they didn't like the feedback they were getting.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

There's thousands of Wikipedia articles where an admin locked a page indefinitely because they disagreed with a single editor once. And because of that one edit alone, it's been locked for 10+ years straight. THe WiKI AnYOne CAn EDit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEDzaGfnGQIG4qRoHljZMhk5YaSd4FAmdFm8EACgkQjZMhk5Ya
Sd4ZXg//fx7eWlkio+iWAvIGZ5IKK8i61+GTKFGheaQDKR7YEppyuAsNqW+W+p3f
iOL28n3yI2UF8Cdov7zouH8k0RhbSzdU44kFGg0bagC0MBDE+ljlG+aK8lwBKO97
+AcYcIZsMY+6euPspjf/eJuGwl7riXT2xTqFbTtUA2dHUb8Ulri+4lDkOuDbKtoy
rwOmCUJeLb6ey2zc5Qe7TtNydHCrP9YpUyCGLNFct8fjyGb0SMszpXAp/t66PcVQ
Excbqvku9GA6XaTRNKHY8897MpIscF3QLoHvRclMCA5J7AC8Q4NanTJjAezMnW0A
H0Y2QMUW84ehG5mlyVR4wfszJdnvRI4S9swBlPoESRov/qPKxhDThbM8qNtNSOYE
1ydP8svHXjRsIOGx/jDGShqDHbj7lieiJ6qHM91PCpgEowN4m8wd7FtojstTq06D
vRJOvLzkVAVJ77sLUxbmO3xiwsR9tk5wX6ubCFsp3gC63qASwAuUK9LCNe8IGJRm
eaNXFntJ9k2yk1x7olrETlJO9EAsn6Py9UdVRnO4jB+csQnd7uoas0C1sU0MrxA5
fXMPTh9Klt2KZlBY8RtDlUJOF/6nG9IeLiGsKdrewvlIO/DFUY6mbk0Vm5Cw/+qv
lsXYuUmSuEj7Upv8jkX9MmGvIyERmbiXedH4sWK+XiB0hZQTUBw=
=i2Dp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----