9 ms·

Gamergate. It's absolutely the right place to look if you want to know how to 'jump the shark'.

by spdegabrielle 11y ago

mwfunk 11y ago
Gamergate jumped the shark when it first became a thing, it didn't need any Wikipedia-related drama to do it. :)
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Disclaimer: I am affiliated with Curse, a popular games media network which has taken no part in the controversy. I've remained neutral to Gamergate as much as possible, but kept myself informed. One of its core problems is that it kept the name "gamergate" for a lot of similar-but-unrelated issues which makes it encompass a lot more than is humanly digestable by anyone looking it up for the first time. People get kind of crazy when they hear that "women are being attacked", and never really want to hear the full story. The following blog post is one of the most descriptive of the actual issues and comes from someone who was on the side "against" gamergate. I recommend it: http://geekswithwives.com/experiencing-gamergate-from-all-sides/ http://geekswithwives.com/experiencing-gamergate-from-all-si... Edit: As an aside... while I'm neutral, as a gamer and someone who has worked on the sides of the games industry for the past decade, I can't help but feel targeted whenever someone blames "gamergate, and by definition gamers" for whatever B.S. they endured from some random twitter troll under a hashtag anyone can use at any time they feel like.
hkon 11y ago
Please elaborate a bit. I am unfamiliar with both terms
- joshuapants 11y ago
  Definition of Gamergate: depends on who you ask, it's a heavily politicized movement. Best to research this yourself from a variety of sources and come to your own conclusion. Definition of jumping the shark: A late episode of the TV program Happy Days involved a major character jumping over a shark on a pair of water skis. He had done previous stunts involving jumping over things on a motorcycle. Basically the writers ran out of ideas and resorted to things like this to keep viewers interested (not altogether successfully). So now we have the term "jumping the shark" to indicate a decline in quality. edited to change jet ski to water skis
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Water skis.
    - joshuapants 11y ago
      Ah, that's right. I'll edit, thanks for the correction
  - fsk 11y ago
    http://www.jumpedtheshark.co.uk/ http://www.jumpedtheshark.co.uk/ Also, it wasn't just a major character, it was The Fonz. The Fonz was originally a minor character, but he was so popular with fans that he became a main character, and is the most memorable character on the show. My favorite "Jump The Shark" actor is Ted McGinley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_McGinley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_McGinley He's joined the cast of several once-popular shows as they were on the decline.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  Gamergate in a nutshell: A: "Games journalism is being corrupted by woman-centered bias. Here's the damning proof: This guy says his ex-girlfriend repeatedly traded sex for positive reviews of her game." B: "That is provably untrue." A: "Yes, okay, that was a lie. Why are you so hung up on that when the real issue is that women are ruining games journalism?"
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    That's not even close to being fair. Try http://deepfreeze.it http://deepfreeze.it - complete with citations for pretty mcuh everything.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    What really hurts me reading this post is that you either don't know anything about a very controversial situation and still felt qualified to "explain things in a nutshell", or you are very clearly on one side (and consequently know a lot more than you let on) and felt the need to lie. So.. why?
    - throwaway161605 11y ago
      Do better.
      - scrollaway 11y ago
        It's sad you made a throwaway just to be able to downvote me. On HN of all places. Kind of ruins your credibility, doesn't it?
        throwaway161605 11y ago
        a) If I chose to exercise my main account here, there's nothing that would prevent me from downvoting. There would be no need to create a new account. Even trying to wouldn't make sense because... b) New accounts cannot downvote anybody. By operating here with an alt account instead of my main account, I give up my ability to downvote. Given A and B, your entire premise is totally messed up. c) It's sad that you've resorted twice to the "it's sad" shtick. The comment was a non-aggressive, good faith one. How about you not take it as an attack? How about you take it as a genuine request? How about you consider following through with the request on that token? Do better than that response, too.
lkrubner 11y ago
Good lord, I had no idea how bad the situation was. Check it out, they are still locked in angry debate, with new comments going up on the talk page as of yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy —————— @Gamaliel: What new accounts? What does your closing and hiding of this thread have to do with new accounts editing the article? The thread had nothing to do with new accounts editing the article or not editing it. We were talking about how people respond to reader feedback on the talk page, not editing the article. What kind of grounds for closing and hiding a thread is this? As the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense whatsoever, I will open it again after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC) —————— Chrisrus again unilaterally declares that “the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense.” They make sense to the rest of us. This is simply disruptive editing. Will someone please take the appropriate steps already? Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
scrollaway 11y ago
It's not wikipedia's first controversy and it won't be the last. Whenever you have anything involving two "sides" ending up in wikipedia, wikipedia is faced with the challenge of remaining neutral and impartial to it. That conflicts with the very idea that "anybody can edit it". It's kind of like when you have a jury trial, but anyone and everyone can get on the jury at any point, disguising themselves as anyone they are or are not, and there's no limit on how many jurors there should be.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Wikipedia does a lot of things very well. But polarizing topics are very clearly not one of those things. I suspect that they're an example of something that--more or less inherently--is more of less incompatible with Wikipedia's fundamental model.

Gamergate. It's absolutely the right place to look if you want to know how to 'jump the shark'.

mwfunk 11y ago

Gamergate jumped the shark when it first became a thing, it didn't need any Wikipedia-related drama to do it. :)

scrollaway 11y ago
Disclaimer: I am affiliated with Curse, a popular games media network which has taken no part in the controversy. I've remained neutral to Gamergate as much as possible, but kept myself informed. One of its core problems is that it kept the name "gamergate" for a lot of similar-but-unrelated issues which makes it encompass a lot more than is humanly digestable by anyone looking it up for the first time. People get kind of crazy when they hear that "women are being attacked", and never really want to hear the full story. The following blog post is one of the most descriptive of the actual issues and comes from someone who was on the side "against" gamergate. I recommend it: http://geekswithwives.com/experiencing-gamergate-from-all-sides/ http://geekswithwives.com/experiencing-gamergate-from-all-si... Edit: As an aside... while I'm neutral, as a gamer and someone who has worked on the sides of the games industry for the past decade, I can't help but feel targeted whenever someone blames "gamergate, and by definition gamers" for whatever B.S. they endured from some random twitter troll under a hashtag anyone can use at any time they feel like.

hkon 11y ago

Please elaborate a bit. I am unfamiliar with both terms

joshuapants 11y ago
Definition of Gamergate: depends on who you ask, it's a heavily politicized movement. Best to research this yourself from a variety of sources and come to your own conclusion. Definition of jumping the shark: A late episode of the TV program Happy Days involved a major character jumping over a shark on a pair of water skis. He had done previous stunts involving jumping over things on a motorcycle. Basically the writers ran out of ideas and resorted to things like this to keep viewers interested (not altogether successfully). So now we have the term "jumping the shark" to indicate a decline in quality. edited to change jet ski to water skis
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Water skis.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    Ah, that's right. I'll edit, thanks for the correction
- fsk 11y ago
  http://www.jumpedtheshark.co.uk/ http://www.jumpedtheshark.co.uk/ Also, it wasn't just a major character, it was The Fonz. The Fonz was originally a minor character, but he was so popular with fans that he became a main character, and is the most memorable character on the show. My favorite "Jump The Shark" actor is Ted McGinley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_McGinley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_McGinley He's joined the cast of several once-popular shows as they were on the decline.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
Gamergate in a nutshell: A: "Games journalism is being corrupted by woman-centered bias. Here's the damning proof: This guy says his ex-girlfriend repeatedly traded sex for positive reviews of her game." B: "That is provably untrue." A: "Yes, okay, that was a lie. Why are you so hung up on that when the real issue is that women are ruining games journalism?"
- Karunamon 11y ago
  That's not even close to being fair. Try http://deepfreeze.it http://deepfreeze.it - complete with citations for pretty mcuh everything.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  What really hurts me reading this post is that you either don't know anything about a very controversial situation and still felt qualified to "explain things in a nutshell", or you are very clearly on one side (and consequently know a lot more than you let on) and felt the need to lie. So.. why?
  - throwaway161605 11y ago
    Do better.
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      It's sad you made a throwaway just to be able to downvote me. On HN of all places. Kind of ruins your credibility, doesn't it?
      - throwaway161605 11y ago
        a) If I chose to exercise my main account here, there's nothing that would prevent me from downvoting. There would be no need to create a new account. Even trying to wouldn't make sense because... b) New accounts cannot downvote anybody. By operating here with an alt account instead of my main account, I give up my ability to downvote. Given A and B, your entire premise is totally messed up. c) It's sad that you've resorted twice to the "it's sad" shtick. The comment was a non-aggressive, good faith one. How about you not take it as an attack? How about you take it as a genuine request? How about you consider following through with the request on that token? Do better than that response, too.

lkrubner 11y ago

Good lord, I had no idea how bad the situation was. Check it out, they are still locked in angry debate, with new comments going up on the talk page as of yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy —————— @Gamaliel: What new accounts? What does your closing and hiding of this thread have to do with new accounts editing the article? The thread had nothing to do with new accounts editing the article or not editing it. We were talking about how people respond to reader feedback on the talk page, not editing the article. What kind of grounds for closing and hiding a thread is this? As the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense whatsoever, I will open it again after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC) —————— Chrisrus again unilaterally declares that “the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense.” They make sense to the rest of us. This is simply disruptive editing. Will someone please take the appropriate steps already? Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

scrollaway 11y ago

It's not wikipedia's first controversy and it won't be the last. Whenever you have anything involving two "sides" ending up in wikipedia, wikipedia is faced with the challenge of remaining neutral and impartial to it. That conflicts with the very idea that "anybody can edit it". It's kind of like when you have a jury trial, but anyone and everyone can get on the jury at any point, disguising themselves as anyone they are or are not, and there's no limit on how many jurors there should be.

ghaff 11y ago
Wikipedia does a lot of things very well. But polarizing topics are very clearly not one of those things. I suspect that they're an example of something that--more or less inherently--is more of less incompatible with Wikipedia's fundamental model.