Jimmy Wales on the 'Gate

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:15 pm

I asserted a week ago that I thought people with serious concerns about journalism should abandon the hashtag. He disagreed. I hadn't really put much thought into that particular issues, so I let it drop. Then I read a post by Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia that makes basically the case I would have made. The relevant portions (emphasis mine)

It is very difficult for me to buy into the notion that gamergate is “really about ethics in journalism” when every single experience I have personally had with it involved pro-gg people insulting, threatening, doxxing, etc.
No, not all pro-gg people. But there’s a huge contingent to the extent that for good people – and I respect your letter and assume good faith that you are a good person – the name “gamer gate” is toxic.
Even if 90% of the supporters are good and 10% are bad, the bad are poisoning the message for everyone. That’s not an evaluation of right and wrong, just an observation of a clear fact.
You see, a big part of the problem is that #gamergate is not a movement, but a hashtag. And so there is literally no way to have any quality control of any kind. There is no way to see what is or is not a position of gamergate.
I have had several people over the past weeks say to me “It is not about mysogyny.” I was prepared to believe that. But discussions usually very quickly move to attacking a female game developer for events surrounding her personal life. That’s sick.
The contingent of people who are interested in putting pressure on institutions within game journalism to expose corruption need an actual organization – with a mission statement, with a board of directors, with elected people who represent the movement. Barring that, you should very much expect the media to continue to accurately report that the Gamergate community is associated with online harassment and misogyny. But actually, in fact, it is.
I know that may pain you to hear. You thought you were taking part in a movement that would be about ethics in journalism. A movement that would stand for the rights of all gamers. That would welcome women into the world of gaming and would shame those who would engage in personal attacks on the basis of gender. I admire all of those things.
But #gamergate has been permanently tarnished and highjacked by a handful of people who are not what you would hope.
You might not be the person to lead it. I don’t know who is. But I strongly recommend that someone organize a “gamer’s union” of sorts, with a real mission statement, with real rules, with real organization and leadership.
Bitching and moaning on a twitter hashtag is getting you nowhere, particularly for the reasons I have outlined in this note.
–Jimmy Wales

Link, with the full exchange is hereThis website lists it as allegedly jim wales, but he's confirmed it. I deliberately cropped the letter to remove context because the context just makes gaters look bad.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:31 pm

Just remember guys, if you aren't willing to run an organization, and pay dues, you aren't allowed to advocate for anything, because theoretically some person might say they are related to you, and then be a dick.

And there is absolutely no problem with having an organization be co opted by dicks, or of having someone claim to be a member of an organization. And there is absolutely no problem with people who don't want to join an organization not being able to help. And there is absolutely no problem with people creating lots of slightly different organizations, and having their message diluted.

Just remember, this exact argument that was used against civil rights activists and OWS could not possibly be a bullshit attempt to neuter the movement, it can only ever be a sincere attempt to help (except all those times it was definitely used as an attempt to neuter a movement).

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:52 pm

Anyone who thinks journalistic integrity in reviews is in any way compatible with the current business model of video games is sorely mistaken. Just like anyone who thinks widespread communication on the internet without massive flamewar trollfests is sorely mistaken. And while I'm pointing out the obvious, anyone who expects to communicate more deeply than one-liners or their own ETAs on Twitter is also sorely mistaken.

violence in the media · Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:56 pm

Feminism and social justice have boards of directors and elected representatives?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:15 pm

violence in the media wrote:Feminism and social justice have boards of directors and elected representatives?

Only movements you don't like have to have boards and representatives. After all, conservative assholes (or relatively liberal people like deanrule?) never say that feminism has been destroyed by all the evil bad extremists.

Ed · Post by Ed » Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:25 pm

Kaelik wrote:Just remember guys, if you aren't willing to run an organization, and pay dues, you aren't allowed to advocate for anything, because theoretically some person might say they are related to you, and then be a dick.

Wales isn't saying you can't advocate for what you believe without an organization. But he is saying, and I tend to agree, that the other people who are wearing the hats of your ill-defined group do contribute to the outside perception of you yourself. When most of the vocal people wearing your hat are childish shitbags to begin with, a good way to effectively deny them legitimacy is to--surprisingly enough--build an organization that can grant legitimacy in the first place.

And yes, conservatives regularly tar feminism and social justice movements with the same thing. There are, however, organizations that can and do set an agenda in a credible, sane way, which can be taken seriously even in the face of the (significantly more rare so as to be laughable, but whatever) "extremists" whose stuff is used to discredit the movements in question.

I think at this point there are very few useful idiots left to the GamerGate core, though, so I think it's mostly academic.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Anyone who thinks journalistic integrity in reviews is an any way compatible with the current business model of video games is sorely mistaken.

Also, this. I'm skeptical of the desire for journalistic integrity being a hot button issue now when it's never existed.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:29 pm

There is nothing new or interesting in that rant that I haven't discussed with you before, and there is nothing new or interesting in that rant that would allow you to distinguish the structure of GG from OWS from any disorganized protest movement ever. Here is how this conversation goes: I remind everyone once more that TotalBiscuit stood up to talk about the DMCA claim long before Adam Baldwin opened his stupid fucking mouth to christen the movement GamerGate, and the response was to immediately label TotalBiscuit a misogynist and make impotent threats against his career. If you believe that the evaluation of the movement as misogynistic has anything at all to do with an impartial view of what people in the movement are actually saying, or if you believe the dismissal of people speaking under the GG label has anything to do with the (justly) perceived toxicity of the label, then you're a gullible idiot and I have a bridge to sell you.

It really isn't up for debate that this is an instance of the misogynist label being used reactively and thoughtlessly as a defensive bludgeon, and unless you are a total asshole you should agree with the notion that people who use that label in that way do not deserve the respect or even attention of the public. The worst case scenario for GG is that there are a startling number of shitstains operating under the label who are right for the wrong reasons, and in their quest to drive feminism off the internet they will get rid of a bunch of fucking hacks who are tarnishing the label. The best case scenario is that there are a handful of shitstains operating under the GG label who receive a disproportionate amount of attention because it's politically convenient, and that it's not actually a feminist issue at fucking all. And Jimmy Wales' "in my personal, anecdotal experience which totally isn't influenced by confirmation bias and a predisposition instilled into me by the fact that every article about this in existence is telling me how misogynistic it is" means about fuck all.

EDIT: Also I am fucking exhausted with this topic. Words cannot describe.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:42 pm

violence in the media wrote:Feminism and social justice have boards of directors and elected representatives?

Yes.

http://now.org/about/officers/

http://www.feminist.com/about/board.html

http://www.feminist.org/welcome/board.asp

http://www.equalitynow.org/about-us/board-staff

http://www.iwdc.org/about/board.htm

I could go on but it would take a while.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:09 pm

hyzmarca wrote:
violence in the media wrote:Feminism and social justice have boards of directors and elected representatives?
Yes.

http://now.org/about/officers/

http://www.feminist.com/about/board.html

http://www.feminist.org/welcome/board.asp

http://www.equalitynow.org/about-us/board-staff

http://www.iwdc.org/about/board.htm

I could go on but it would take a while.

Here's a fun question; I want to send feminism a letter. Which board of directors do I contact? If this were 1980, would the board of directors for WAVPM be an acceptable addition to the list, despite how controversial it was within the feminist community?

Here's an alternative idea; the sentence "send feminism a letter" is fucking gibberish for the same reason "feminism has boards of directors" is fucking gibberish. Feminism is a loose collection of ideals that people sometimes choose to organize under in the name of specific goals, and does not "have" anything and will never "have" anything because it's an abstract concept like love or freedom.

The only thing that a "please represent yourself with a board of directors" standard for protest movements does is tell the little people to shut the fuck up. Seriously. That's all it does. It's just the declaration that individual outrage is meaningless unless you have the expertise and resources and cohesion to organize yourself behind a central management. It's fucking insane and disenfranchising. The random people shouting on the streets of Ferguson matter both when the NAACP is organizing them and when it isn't.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:47 pm

DSMatticus wrote:
hyzmarca wrote:
violence in the media wrote:Feminism and social justice have boards of directors and elected representatives?
Yes.

http://now.org/about/officers/

http://www.feminist.com/about/board.html

http://www.feminist.org/welcome/board.asp

http://www.equalitynow.org/about-us/board-staff

http://www.iwdc.org/about/board.htm

I could go on but it would take a while.
Here's a fun question; I want to send feminism a letter. Which board of directors do I contact? If this were 1980, would the board of directors for WAVPM be an acceptable addition to the list, despite how controversial it was within the feminist community?

Here's an alternative idea; the sentence "send feminism a letter" is fucking gibberish for the same reason "feminism has boards of directors" is fucking gibberish. Feminism is a loose collection of ideals that people sometimes choose to organize under in the name of specific goals, and does not "have" anything and will never "have" anything because it's an abstract concept like love or freedom.

The only thing that a "please represent yourself with a board of directors" standard for protest movements does is tell the little people to shut the fuck up. Seriously. That's all it does. It's just the declaration that individual outrage is meaningless unless you have the expertise and resources and cohesion to organize yourself behind a central management. It's fucking insane and disenfranchising. The random people shouting on the streets of Ferguson matter both when the NAACP is organizing them and when it isn't.

In practical terms, not exactly. The NAACP gets meetings with presidents. Random people shouting on the streets get tear gassed.
There is a substantial difference in ability to get things done.

Random people shouting without leadership accomplish very little, nothing, or sometimes less than nothing. They sometimes actually set back their cause.

Leadership is the ones that get the high level political meetings, they're the ones who talk to Congressmen and Senators and Presidents. They're the ones who get new laws written.

They need the random masses behind them to give their words weight, but they're the ones who actually say things that matter at all.

But for just random people without leadership, getting tear gassed and beaten is the best case scenario. The more likely scenario is tear gassed, beaten, and portrayed in the media as thugs who deserved it, damaging any credibility that the movement had gathered by that point.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:19 pm

The NAACP gets meetings with presidents today because in the past a bunch of random people let themself be tear gassed (or the era-appropriate equivalent), beaten, and portrayed in the media as thugs who deserved it until the dam broke. The number of civil rights movements which have sprung into existence with the respect of the status quo against which they rallied is basically zero, and the first step is always "get shat on as a bunch of splintered rabble." Everything about what you said is dumbwrong.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:45 pm

I think we can agree that a genuine social movement needs both disorganized popular unrest to call attention to the issue, implicitly (or explicitly) threaten the powers that be, and lend credibility to the organizations; and also needs visible leaders who can be negotiated with, who can debate proposed solutions and who can agree on reasonable action items.

I'd also like to note that while political and social movements need those things, consumer movements typically do not. Consumer Report does not as far as I know derive much of its authority from mass protest actions, nor does the BBB. When you don't need to compel state or parastate actors to change their behavior, you have a lot more options. I don't see any reason why 80% of these "ethics in journalism" problems couldn't be resolved by a consumer advocacy organization that maintained watch lists of corrupt news outlets, endorsed independent reporting, and by consumers who made smarter purchasing and reading choices.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:19 am

DSMatticus wrote:The NAACP gets meetings with presidents today because in the past a bunch of random people let themself be tear gassed (or the era-appropriate equivalent), beaten, and portrayed in the media as thugs who deserved it until the dam broke. The number of civil rights movements which have sprung into existence with the respect of the status quo against which they rallied is basically zero, and the first step is always "get shat on as a bunch of splintered rabble." Everything about what you said is dumbwrong.

You'd be hard pressed to seriously argue that spontaneous riots accomplished more than organized marches, protests and sit-ins did.

Ikeren · Post by **Ikeren** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:45 am

You'd be hard pressed to seriously argue that spontaneous riots accomplished more than organized marches, protests and sit-ins did.

Do we have to weigh it? It seems like movements (Vietnam war protests are an easy example, or the civil rights movement and Rodney King) did benefit from the publicity and intensity resultant from activities other than organized marches, protests, and sit-ins.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:30 am

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:31 am

Orion wrote:I think we can agree that a genuine social movement needs both disorganized popular unrest to call attention to the issue, implicitly (or explicitly) threaten the powers that be, and lend credibility to the organizations; and also needs visible leaders who can be negotiated with, who can debate proposed solutions and who can agree on reasonable action items.

No, that isn't a thing we can agree on and you should feel really dickish for saying it. OWS didn't have a central leadership and it was a genuine social movement with legitimate grievances and the depiction of OWS by conservatives and centrists and even some progressives was fucking abhorrent. Look; the frameworks you're trying to use to criticize GamerGate shit on real people and real causes a lot more important than video game journalism. They are bad frameworks and you should set them on fire and abandon them. You absolutely should not be trying to salvage them. And moving forward, you should in advance consider the ramifications of the frameworks you adopt for OWS and the early civil rights movements, because those are generally pretty easy litmus tests.

But even more importantly than that, you should not be looking for structural reasons to dismiss protest movements without engaging their content at all! I get that you don't want to have the "does GamerGate have legitimate grievances, and does that make GamerGate a legitimate movement?" talk, because that's a lot fucking harder, what with the DMCA bullshit and the treatment of John Bain, the incredibly sensationalized threats, the incredible amount of internal division, and a myriad of other bullshit. But honestly just fucking saying "no, they're a bunch of misogynists" is less offensive than looking for some technical aspect of the way this particular movement is structured that lets you claim their voices don't count so who cares if they're misogynists anyway.

hyzmarca wrote:You'd be hard pressed to seriously argue that spontaneous riots accomplished more than organized marches, protests and sit-ins did.

I'm going to note that the goalposts are slowly shifting. I don't really think it's intentional or anything, but it's happening. The argument isn't about whether or not organized resistance is more effective than spontaneous resistance, the argument is about where the fuck organized resistance comes from. And the answer is a bunch of individual outrage and spontaneous resistance.

The NAACP exists and receives attention because people spent enough time shouting on the streets that organizing in the name of civil rights became a legitimate thing to do. The 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycotts happened because an NAACP secretary with no real authority or noteworthiness in the movement spontaneously decided she would ignore the orders of a public official and get herself arrested (and also because when civil rights leaders expressed hesitance to champion that particular cause, the president of the local NAACP chapter strongarmed them into doing so with threats to publicly shame them). It is not a story of unity and organization. It is a messy and complicated story full of individual, uncoordinated acts of noncompliance and internal conflict around dividing lines both petty and all important. And that is basically every story about every movement ever.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:46 am

Relevant to this is that the GamerGate wikia had been documenting evidence of bias in a few wiki editors who were trying to turn the GamerGate article on Wikipedia into a hit piece. Wales has a fairly well known loyalty to his editors, even when there is significant evidence that his Wikipedia community becomes more toxic and dogmatic by the day. It is suspected that the discovery of and subsequent removal of this article may have prompted Wales to go from GG-leaning to GJP-leaning like this.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:51 am

Oh for fuck sake it's been utterly obvious since day one that "Gamers Gate" (stupid name for stupid people BTW) has been Misogyny and idiots with the thin veneer of some sort of reform movement painted on and NOT a reform movement with the thin veneer of misogyny and idiots painted on.

The guy quoted in the OP is being stupidly polite when he pretends that Gamers gate has a problem with a minority tainting it's image. It has ALWAYS been the other way around.

So, if you are part of the minority that honestly thinks it's about journalism reform or some bullshit, learn your fucking lesson, DON'T hitch your tiny band wagon to a Misogynistic shit storm next time. And for now, unhitch your band wagon and stop insisting everything is fine you fucking idiots. I don't care how organized or disorganized or how much you REALLY wish you were the majority, that's just a stupid fucking thing to do and even if you EVER take over the movement from the misogynists (hint, you wont) your movement will ALWAYS be tainted.

If anyone was fucking serious about a games journalism reform movement it would exist independently. In ANY fucking form.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:58 am

DSMatticus wrote:OWS didn't have a central leadership and it was a genuine social movement with legitimate grievances

And look at how successful it was at getting things done and making change!

I have no opinion on "Gamergate" because every time people discuss it, all I hear from either side is "WHARGLE BARGLE ARGLE NARGLE THAT PERSON THERE IS A COCKMOUNTAIN". But pretending OWS achieved anything in the face of overwhelming adversity is delusional. Change happens either with fancy organisations or with fire bombs.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:45 am

Koumei wrote:
DSMatticus wrote:OWS didn't have a central leadership and it was a genuine social movement with legitimate grievances
And look at how successful it was at getting things done and making change!

I have no opinion on "Gamergate" because every time people discuss it, all I hear from either side is "WHARGLE BARGLE ARGLE NARGLE THAT PERSON THERE IS A COCKMOUNTAIN". But pretending OWS achieved anything in the face of overwhelming adversity is delusional. Change happens either with fancy organisations or with fire bombs.

Yeah, calling bullshit. The goal of OWS was to influence public discourse, and despite incredibly unfair treatment by the media they actually managed to do that. Income inequality is a bigger issue today than in was in 2010, and people are still having that discussion using the "we are the 99%" rhetoric borne out of the movement. OWS failed to directly enact any meaningful policy changes, but if you hadn't noticed you can levy that particular criticism at the entire fucking Democratic party as of late. Broken government is broken, and right now no amount of public outrage nor organized political action means jackshit in the short-term; it's going to be years (and a couple of elections) before anything happens in our federal legislature that doesn't require a rubber-stamp (grudging or otherwise) from the oligarchs who just bought themselves our senate. That's just the state of the country, and in a sane world "passing laws" probably wouldn't be too high a bar for success, but in this case "making people talk about the thing you want them to talk about" is basically the only thing that can be feasibly accomplished.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:07 am

On the other hand, OWS already had some institutions with nominally similar goals and values. The Democratic party already existed, as did various left-wind political parties (socialist, working families, green, etc.), left-wing think tanks like the SPLC, and so on. OWS street needs Elizabeth Warren, because to the extent that OWS communicated anything, it was basically that people should listen to Elizabeth Warren.

If none of those institutions existed, it would make sense to tell OWS people that their next step should be to organize some PACs and think about running some candidates. No equivalents exist in gaming, so I think it's fair to tell gamergate people that their priority right now should be to start some journals or foundations.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:28 am

Orion wrote:No equivalents exist in gaming, so I think it's fair to tell gamergate people that their priority right now should be to start some journals or foundations.

You heard it here first, folks: Total Biscuit does not exist.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:34 am

Fuck Jim Sterling doesn't exist.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:53 am

DSMatticus wrote:The goal of OWS was to influence public discourse, and despite incredibly unfair treatment by the media they actually managed to do that.

Oh goody, public discourse! We can all talk about how shit things are while we eat our shoes! That was definitely worth the tear gas and concussions, everyone!

OWS failed to directly enact any meaningful policy changes

And that is entirely 100% of what matters. Also to be fair to the Democratic party, you'll notice they basically can't actually get anything passed what with the Republicans being as they are. Now the fact that they are also right wing (albeit centre-right) oligarchs doesn't help, but any concessions were going to be blocked by the far-right mental party and their completely mental offshoot. There may be hope if you don't end up with Clinton vs Bush round 2: Corporate Boogaloo. But that still depends on limiting Republican power, not just on a fresh presence in Democrats.

Meanwhile, OWS predates our government over here, which still managed to roll into power and double down on making life shit for people. Yes we did have Occupy Melbourne and shit, and the police received a payrise for cracking skulls, leaving them to wonder how much money they'd have received if they'd just gunned everyone down. It was Not Very Effective, as can be seen by the inability to prevent the Coalition from seizing power here.

right now no amount of public outrage nor organized political action means jackshit in the short-term;

And a lot of that came to be in spite of OWS. As in, the political changes (Republicans holding everything except the actual presidency, Ausfalia electing a party that smokes cigars with a high-up from the Kh'mer Rouge) that guarantee nothing is happening occurred after the OWS demonstrations. It failed. There was no big figure to bankroll it and push for governmental changes in a meaningful way.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:57 am

Jim Sterling looks pretty cool. Thank you for pointing him out.

EDIT: Has he said anything positive about gamergate? Have gamertgaters been saying anything positive about him? How ell known is he? Is it typical or unusual that I'm hearing of him for the first time now, despite several threads of gamergate talk gere and elsewhere?