> You seem to have back pedaled from your original absurd claim. Not at all. The GamerGate movement began with people looking to punish Quinn for her infidelit

> You seem to have back pedaled from your original absurd claim. Not at all. The GamerGate movement began with people looking to punish Quinn for her infidelity, and people who already hated her game jumped on the bandwagon to invent conspiracy theories to explain why it was well-reviewed. These people jumped to the demonstrably false conclusion that she had traded sex for reviews, and that narrative, unfortunately, went mainstream, and caught the attention of people who legitimately cared about journalistic ethics and weren't aware of the previous facts. And that's still continuing--you see a lot of well-meaning people in this thread who are still not aware how much of the sex-for-reviews narrative and the GameJournoPros narrative are outright lies. > Its hard to find any neutral source that aggregates all the factual information. Does this website cover everything? Do you have an alternate source? That site may work as a timeline, but whatever your position, I think we can agree that GamerGate's own wiki is not an unbiased source.