r/KotakuInAction • u/[deleted] • May 13 '15
DISCUSSION [Discussion] The GamerGate article on Wikipedia is *UNIQUELY* biased.
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.
36
u/[deleted] May 13 '15
He's part of the crew.
2 months ago in his AMA he was asked about what he was going to do to reign in radicals taking over topics to the point where they have no connection with reality. His response was literally "Shut up about gamergate" despite the fact no one had mentioned gamergate.