Talk:Gamergate

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the Gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Misgendering?

The last sentence of the lede's first paragraph says: "Gamergate targeted women in the video game industry, most notably feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and video game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu." On Zoe Quinn's page it says they're nonbinary, so I feel like the sentence could use some rewording. x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 06:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm no expert here, but could we add a note that says something like "At the time, Quinn identified as a woman" or "used they/she pronouns"? Woodroar (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Article looking back on gamergate

Thread retitled from Nice article looking back on gamergate.

Considering how debated this topic is, I'm not gonna add it myself, but this article seems like a nice reflection on what gamergate was. It's written by a woman fwiw. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering it's basically "It wasn't about harassment, it was about corruption in games journalism: The article" I wouldn't say it's 'nice' at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention it misgenders Quinn within its first few paragraphs; I'd question the reliability of the "research" from its author. nil ^nz 12:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

That website has a track record of lying. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 22:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

That website is not generally considered credible. They steal stories from other outlets and claim they're "exclusives", post rumors as fact, and sometimes flat-out make things up. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not that impressed. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Video uncovering the truth

We should mention the video that uncovers what GamerGate "was", made by @NeverKnowsBest Good vid tbh Random TCC Fan (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I think at the very least it's worth considering! EvasiveLinguistBC (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Random TCC Fan and @EvasiveLinguistBC, could you provide a link and some details? Who is @NeverKnowsBest? Is there a good reason to mention the video? Woodroar (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure! This is the YouTube link to the video, it’s about six hours long and Wikipedia is mentioned/depicted multiple times: https://youtube.com/ox15GU4cMes?si=LZv-CA2Ypgq4d4AB EvasiveLinguistBC (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox15GU4cMes&t=17744s EvasiveLinguistBC (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I apologize again, please ignore the t=17744s at the end of the link. EvasiveLinguistBC (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I watched some of it, at least until my minor quibbles became major quibbles. The few mentions of Wikipedia weren't great, for example. But it was interesting enough.

However, the real issue here is that @NeverKnowsBest isn't a reliable source on the topic of Gamergate. Much like his other videos, this one didn't get any coverage in wider media. He's an anonymous video essayist with a decent following, but that's not enough for Wikipedia. We're looking for reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy—and in most cases that means their work gets cited or shared or commented on by other reputable media outlets. Woodroar (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense; I’m not so fluent with Wikipedia's rules but I was thinking the video would probably count as original research or the like. Thanks for addressing the video though! EvasiveLinguistBC (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)