3 ms·

Could you give a suggestion on how to improve that Article?

• tomp 8y ago
  It should be neutral, and/or jnclude the pro-GG view, not just the anti-GG view. A few concrete points: (1) there was extreme harassment from both sides; (2) targeted harassment against some women doesn’t mean “mysoginy” (just like targeted harassment against Hitler doesn’t mean “misandry”); (3) the overarching theme isn’t “right-wing reaction against progressivism”, but a reaction against feminist politically-correct politics that started to affect the gaming world (that was previously happily genderless, offensive and agenda-free).
  • ceejayoz 8y ago
    Expanding that beyond GG for a moment... Does every Wikipedia article have to include both pro- and anti- views? Do they need to be given equal weight?
    • tomp 8y ago
      That’s what I would expect from a generic (as opposed to clearly biased in the title, like “Christian view on creation of man” or something) encyclopaedic article on a topic, yes.
      • ceejayoz 8y ago
        So the Earth article should give equal time to flat-Earthers, the Apollo moon landings should devote 50% to the "it was faked" idea, and Queen Elizabeth II's page should talk about her being a lizard person? I think I'd prefer a useful encyclopedia.
        • tomp 8y ago
          No, but the “Moon landing controversy” article should.
          • ceejayoz 8y ago
            The "Moon landing conspiracy theories" page on Wikipedia appears to consist of a thorough debunking. The only 50/50 it does is presenting the claims before knocking them down at length. (As, I suggest, is appropriate.)