Blog:More about GamerGate

As you know, a while ago I made a blog post questioning multiple political views on Qualitipedia. While we are slowly getting rid of political stuff unless it has a large affect on media, keep in mind that (a for stuff that does have an effect, we still need one and (b it can still be a concern given how close pro-GamerGate users are on these wikis.

Now, while I had initially read the lead section only, after reading the history section, I know a lot more about GamerGate. The problem with the belief that GamerGate was not a harassment campaign overall is not simply whether or not what did happen is enough for it to be a "harassment campaign," but that the Wikipedia article does not mention anything happening other than harassment, other than the sexual conflict of interest accusation, which was (a defamation and (b outright untrue from what it appears. If someone can prove to me anything that happened during GamerGate wasn't harassment or defamation in some way, then fair enough, but otherwise, I see no reason not to believe Wikipedia.

Now, I'll admit that it is still possible that the "harassment campaign" statement is biased because even if GamerGate is in the wrong and did involve harassment, it is possible that one could prove that reliable sources argue that it depends on your belief whether or not it was a bad campaign solely intended for harassment, initially had good intentions but went too far, or that everything done during the movement was rightful (though, you'd have to be a rather awful person to say that). Still though, when it comes to political opinions, there's no reason anyone should defend GamerGate judging from what I've seen. Again, as I said however, you are free to prove me wrong.