4 ms·

Well I did fully acknowledge that Vox & Gawker are not without their problems. And if we break down Gawker to be ALL of Gawker a big problem of trust their is t

Well I did fully acknowledge that Vox & Gawker are not without their problems. And if we break down Gawker to be ALL of Gawker a big problem of trust their is their Kinja contribution system, but some writers within the smaller groups (Kotaku, Gizmodo) have done good reporting. Wikipedia stated the reason they removed Brietbart was due to its "unreliability". That means they did take the time to explore BB as a source to validate the claims. If Vox and the entire Gawker network were "unreliable" I'm sure they would do the same. I put it in quotes because it was a statement the GG latched on to to claim as their whole reasoning. However countless doxing & harassement attempts, specifically towards some women, prove otherwise. Again, one of their big tent pole arguments was that gaming press (which in reality is relatively young) had a mailing list they all communicated on. Which is just ludicrous to use as "collusion" b/c it assumes all press operates in a black box with no communciation. There is a double standard in press reporting, but it is not some thing that is exclusive to gaming. There's a clip of Rooster Teeth slamming another press outlet for their review of Fallout while all three of them (Rooster Teeth) are decked out in Fallout gear. I can assure many more YT personalities are getting free gifts from companies to promote & review, but not disclosing as such. There is a new practice now of seeding games to these personalities early to help drum up hype around games. This is precisely the ethics situation you claim, but that's if you assume YT should be considered press (it's not). Someone who was contributing to IGN just got ratted out for plagarizing and IGN, after investigating, removed every piece of their content. By GG standards of IGN they're some unethical place and would have never done this. So yeah, GG in itself is a double standard and completely unreliable in their message.

CM30 8y ago
Just going to say that quite a few GamerGate forums covered the IGN story, praised IGN for getting rid of the guy and basically slammed the hell out of Filip Miucin for copying other people's work. https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=Filip+Miucin https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=Filip+Miuci... The idea that they're quiet on actual ethics issues while making a mountain out of a molehill on localisation ones is false. As for collusion, well it's questionable whether it occurred, but at least a bit suspicious that many sites suddenly turned out their audience mid controversy. Imagine if someone else did that. Like, an agency dev called their clients morons online, or a retail worker said their customers were malicious/trolls/sociopaths to their face. Would they still have a job? Probably not. But that happened, it shouldn't have happened, and it's being justified somehow. It's also worth pointing out that quite a few smaller sites and YouTube channels with GamerGate... tendencies or neutrality are actually pretty damn reliable, and that most aren't exactly Breitbart or fake news esque. Stuff like Techraptor or Niche Gamer or what not isn't exactly unreliable. Stuff like SidAlpha's YouTube channel isn't unreliable. The issue is that what Wikipedia considers a reliable source is very much tilted in the large corporation/academia direction and misses the point in what reliability actually is. This isn't the 60s/70s/80s/whenever when being reliable only meant being a full time employee for a major newspaper or television network or publishing your work in an academic context. Many smaller blogs and creators (even under pseudonyms or anonymity) have equally good or better records now, and standards should change to accomodate that.
- TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
  For clarification, I was intending to say GG took down IGN over the story. I was noting an outlet that was targeted initially in GG was IGN, but IGN showed they do in fact have "ethics".

CM30 8y ago

Just going to say that quite a few GamerGate forums covered the IGN story, praised IGN for getting rid of the guy and basically slammed the hell out of Filip Miucin for copying other people's work. https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=Filip+Miucin https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=Filip+Miuci... The idea that they're quiet on actual ethics issues while making a mountain out of a molehill on localisation ones is false. As for collusion, well it's questionable whether it occurred, but at least a bit suspicious that many sites suddenly turned out their audience mid controversy. Imagine if someone else did that. Like, an agency dev called their clients morons online, or a retail worker said their customers were malicious/trolls/sociopaths to their face. Would they still have a job? Probably not. But that happened, it shouldn't have happened, and it's being justified somehow. It's also worth pointing out that quite a few smaller sites and YouTube channels with GamerGate... tendencies or neutrality are actually pretty damn reliable, and that most aren't exactly Breitbart or fake news esque. Stuff like Techraptor or Niche Gamer or what not isn't exactly unreliable. Stuff like SidAlpha's YouTube channel isn't unreliable. The issue is that what Wikipedia considers a reliable source is very much tilted in the large corporation/academia direction and misses the point in what reliability actually is. This isn't the 60s/70s/80s/whenever when being reliable only meant being a full time employee for a major newspaper or television network or publishing your work in an academic context. Many smaller blogs and creators (even under pseudonyms or anonymity) have equally good or better records now, and standards should change to accomodate that.

TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
For clarification, I was intending to say GG took down IGN over the story. I was noting an outlet that was targeted initially in GG was IGN, but IGN showed they do in fact have "ethics".