User talk:Capilleary

Welcome!

Hi, Capilleary. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

GamerGate article

Since you seem to be confused on this point I feel I should explain from a more sympathetic perspective. The edit you inserted was false given the context of the statement in the lede. The allegation that Quinn slept with a Kotaku journalist for a favorable review of her game was definitely not verified as there is no evidence of such a review from the journalist ever existing, deleted or otherwise. Both Kotaku and Gjoni acknowledged there is no indication that Quinn was in a romantic relationship with Grayson when the only article he wrote for Kotaku involving her was published. As phrased the lede only mentions the claims of her having had sex with him for a favorable review of her game and there is no evidence to suggest this actually occurred. Whether that settles all concerns regarding conflict-of-interest is a separate matter, but the specific allegation mentioned in the lede of sex for favorable reviews has been firmly debunked. Now, I do think the phrasing of the lede in that respect is overly confusing since it seems people are failing to realize that it is not denying the relationship between Quinn and Grasyon, but the allegation that Grayson wrote a favorable review of her game in exchange for sex and all evidence points to this being false.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was for a favorable review. That is a straw man argument everyone keeps fighting. There were at least 2 articles on Kotaku that mention Zoe Quinn or "Depression Quest" in a favorable way. Until now, some articles are dedicated to this "game" being published on Steam, while real games don't have this privilege. DQ has received abnormal amounts of attention for what it represents, from a technological point of view, or an artistic point of view, or the "fun" point of view. The fact is that it shouldn't even be considered a game. And that is a fact, coming from hundreds of reviewers, and anyone who has played games in the past. Why was it mentioned so much then? Is it a coincidence that Zoe was close (even if not publicly in a romantic relationship) with an author at that publication? Had it nothing to do? So fine, I accept that it is not a hard cold fact that there was a conflict of interest case if you judge from articles published on mass media. But if you compare that, to the number of times gamers get shat on, for being misogynists and such, without a single shred of evidence linking any representative of the gaming community, to misogyny. Yet the whole article is filled with hate towards gamers. And what happens when Christina Hoff Sommers tries to talk some sense into this? The same publications publish stories with almost the same title, that is basically a smear campaign directed at her, calling her conservative, even though she's a registered democrat. She's an esteemed academic, yet she is being shat all over by the very publications that are being used to shit over gamers. Why? Obviously because they have NOTHING to do with the word "verifyable". They should not be mentioned on wikipedia, ever. And any news in other publications that has any links to these corrupt publications should be disregarded as well.

The whole scandal was started by the discovery that there is a huge level of corruption in the media. And you use the same media to write an article about the scandal? This is appalling. Capilleary (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while it would be nice if Wikipedia were not honor-bound by what "reliable sources" cover and the way they cover it, that would also create a whole lot more problems since then there would be even less to keep people from seeking to impose their own version of the "truth" on this site. Depending on major news outlets helps provide some structure and order to editing and content. That sometimes these very outlets conduct themselves in a manner that is undeserving of such consideration is disappointing, but something for which editors should and sometimes do try to compensate. I believe the article could be more neutral even while using these sources, but there is undeniably a problem of editorial and, in some cases, administrative bias involved as well. Certain policies allow a lot of room for editorial and administrative discretion, which invariably means personal biases play a role in what gets included and what gets excluded.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Depending on major news outlets helps provide some structure and order to editing and content." - and calling a whole community "misogynist". This is why it's wrong. There are other news articles, that don't go on an offending spree, and that don't belong to a single corporation that has a lot to lose if one of the news sites loses credibility, and does everything in its power to limit the damage. News sites are a very bad source. Always have been. It's amazing that someone actually calls them reliable. Even huge sites like the huffington post and NY Times are VERY bad reporters. They don't do any actual reporting, and have taken up the idea from BuzzFeed, to create sensational titles, and not giving a damn about the content. Here's Oliver catching major news sites not giving a damn about what's true and what's not. Here's Stewart showing what trash people get away with when writing articles. The fact that major news sites often show conflicting stories just proves they are biased. And when it comes to cold hard facts? Have you ever written articles on scientific topics? It's amazing how easy news articles skew research papers to manufacture crazy titles that have nothing to do with research. Because what SHOULD be valued on Wikipedia is research, and not news articles. Research is verifiable. Science is testable. So why not apply the scientific method? Why not use as source the very thing the article is about? Why not use that damn Twitter, to take actual quotes of the people this article is actually about, and not biased commercial "he said she said" bovine feces that is shown very well that is bovine feces? Why settle with dishonest journalists that are the very thing being questioned here? Why listen to them when writing what GamerGate is about, instead of actually GamerGate itself? This is wrong on all levels, and is an abuse of Wikipedia rules, by using word play. The intention never was to be exact. Otherwise first-hand sources would have been used. Capilleary (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that the whole article discussion is blatantly ignoring the vested interest, which can't be ignored, which makes the first hand article source unusable, and referring articles unusable as well. There is a good reason why wikipedia has policies against vested interest. So that people don't ignore it. This is a clear violation of so many rules, this is wrong on so many levels, that I don't believe this is Wikipedia we're talking about. Facts are ignored, corrupted media cited, rules shoved into a distant orifice. If this goes on, I won't be donating a single dime any more, and will start looking for an unbiased source of information to contribute to. But I'll wait. The article HAS improved a lot from when it first started and was 100% bovine feces. At least now it has some mention of some truth. Capilleary (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not perfect. Rules are never perfect, but it is better than having none at all. I have been trying to do my part in fixing it up even under the circumstances, but Wikipedia also operates based on consensus and thus just one person is going to have to do a lot of convincing when the preconceptions of the crowd are against him or her.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)