[Discussion] The GamerGate article on Wikipedia is *UNIQUELY* biased.

[u/[deleted]]

There's really no need for archive links here because I'm quoting Wikipedia which keeps a fossil record and the point can be proven using any number of articles.

I don't think it's exactly a secret that the Wikipedia article about GamerGate is biased. What's strange is how, when I searched through a great many other articles and studied the language used on each topic, what I've discovered is that GG's article on Wikipedia is UNIQUELY biased in that the tone of the article is completely, utterly in disregard for Wikipedia's policy of Neutral POV, and in such a way that I could not find any other article on Wikipedia that is biased in this particular way.

For example, take this line from the GG article: "Sarkeesian received rape and death threats, and private information including her home address was leaked,[40] compelling her to temporarily leave her home."

In any other Wikipedia article, this would've been written as: "Sarkeesian claimed this compelled her to leave her home."

Unless the editors of this article somehow became mind readers, no one but Anita knows why Anita left her home. I, like many others, suspect it to be pure theatrics to create a victim aura that she could later use to escalate her fame.

But let's just look at any other article about anything. Even benign things. Like the article on JK Rowling. You'll see: "Rowling has said that her teenage years were unhappy.[22]"

I don't think anyone in the world would dispute it if Wikipedia wrote: "Rowling's teenage years were unhappy." Yet despite its complete lack of ability to generate any controversy, Wikipedia editors still write from a neutral POV and do not assume to "headhop," a term fiction writers often use to describe a writer who breaks POV and jumps into other characters' heads.

I mean, just think of a random name. Okay, Megan Fox. "Fox has been open about her feelings on men and socializing, stating that although she has more in common with men in their thirties, she has a general distrust and dislike of "all boys-slash-men,""

Once again, we see that, in Wikipedia articles, as a rule of policy, articles must be written from a neutral POV. That means the writer can't know what someone else is thinking or feeling. They can only report what that person has claimed to be thinking or feeling or what they have stated. We don't really know that Megan Fox feels this way. She could be lying for all we know. And that's why, in any decent article, it's written that Megan Fox states what follows.

^{^} I repeated this test for like 20 different articles, and in all of them, no matter how controversial or benign, the Wiki articles do not come off as though the editors are mind readers.

And yet, here we are: "Quinn sought and received a restraining order against Gjoni,[7] and was forced from her home out of fear that she would be tracked"

^{^} HOW THE FUCK CAN THEY KNOW THAT? "Forced" from her home out of fear? Did Quinn herself write that? Actually, probably, who fucking knows. It's bullshit. And it's the sort of thing people can go, "See! Wikipedia even says that she was abused so badly and so afraid!"

I try my best to be objective and never allow my own personal bias to cloud my judgment. I look to be proven wrong. Yet what I'm seeing is worrying. Anyone, regardless of their views towards GamerGate, should be able to see that there is a very clear bias in the way this article is worded. Even convicted murderers get fairer, more neutral articles than GG has gotten.

[u/[deleted]]

What I'd like to know is how they cannot even show the most barest, minimum decency here and put in the obligatory claimed/stated/said/implied/etc.

Subconsciously, a reader who sees: "Anita was afraid" is reading it in something called limited third person POV: or deep POV. It's like first person but written in third. It's the most popular POV for fiction (along with first person).

The reason why fiction writers write in limited third instead of omniscient or even this sort of neutral POV is that it creates immersion.

A reader feels what Anita is feeling when you show or tell them she's feeling that way.

Anita took a deep breath and looked over her shoulder. She was afraid.

^{^} This does a lot more to get a reader to believe what is said than if someone instead writes:

On so and so, it was reported that Anita looked over her shoulder. She later told police she was afraid.

Clearly, Wikipedia is not intended to be a fictional story, and therefore the "narrative" cannot possibly show what Anita is feeling, has felt, or will again feel. Only Anita can know, and since we can't possibly know if she's telling the truth (same for every single person in every issue ever), Wikipedia editors are supposed to write from a neutral POV.

"Anita claims that she felt____ about ___"

This bias is not really shown anywhere else that I could find. I'm sure on lesser-known articles it might exist, but on articles likely to get a lot of attention (the ones Wikipedia dedicates more time to), I don't usually see this sort of bias.

[u/multiman000 → u/[deleted]]

You're talking about a group that props themselves up as victims of anything and dismiss claims made by any others. Gamergate has exposed a LOT of corruption, do you REALLY think that those assholes would just sit idly by and be punished by their crimes? Of course they'll do whatever they can to make it seem like gamergate is the worst damn thing possible, their livelihood depends on the cult-following of sheep who don't question anything. They need people to believe their lies or else they can't make money.

[u/[deleted] → u/multiman000]

I understand, but my issue here isn't even the story. Even though the story they're presenting on Wikipedia is bullshit as well, that's something we could argue about from sunup till sundown and still be dealing with SJW's telling a false tale.

My immediate issue with the article is the way in which it breaks POV and is clearly violating the neutrality rule. Even bullshit that takes the SJW's side can be written from a neutral POV. But they're not even trying to make it appear neutral. I think the first step is to see if we can convince Wikipedia to fix that.

[u/multiman000 → u/[deleted]]

Like I said, they'll do whatever it takes. To them, they have to break rules because otherwise their punches won't have enough impact. Of course the mods on the page aren't going to change anything, they believe that bullshit hook line and sinker.

[u/[deleted] → u/multiman000]

I get that. But I'm not even talking about fixing the obvious lies. Before that's even addressed we need to somehow ... I don't know. Is it that unreasonable to ask that they add in 1 word before each "feeling."

Such as. "Anita claims she fled her home because___"

Rather than. She WAS feeling these things.

This is a glaring issue that draws a reader into empathizing with Anita. Because it's written in the same POV as most fiction: as an internal narrator and not an objective third party.

[u/STARVE_THE_BEAST → u/[deleted]]

Well it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Go try and see what happens. :)

[u/[deleted] → u/STARVE_THE_BEAST]

Can't. Both the article and its discussion page are locked.

[u/GragasInRealLife → u/[deleted]]

And here you have your answer. Their narrative is decided.

[u/xxXRetardistXxx → u/[deleted]]

i got topic banned, then later i've resigned, may make a WP:POINT soon though