Talk:Boycott List

From GamerGate Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Note about Counter-Factual

Apparently some of their trolls are trying to start a fight between the users and Gamergate(.me). Anything related to it added to the boycott is probably someone trying to stir shit --SoggyKnees (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of reasons

Shouldn't we include the reasons why some of these sites are being boycotted? --Illage2 (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

There are some, but there's still not enough reasons. I'd add some, but i'm in the dark when it comes to that. NodokaHanamura (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

I would really like to see the reason as well. Especially for high profile sites such as


I've add the Devin Faraci tweets as a reference, but I don't know if every reason should/will be referenced on this page. --Gehirn (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

I think that a reason for each entry is essential. If we can't find a reason, or if the reason is really quite minor, they probably ought to be removed. Psycho Robot (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2014 (EDT)
Of course, minor reasons shouldn't warrant a boycott in the first place, but what I meant was how we would handle the archived pages, screencaps and tweets wich are the sources of the reasons mentioned in this page:
  • We could use numbered references at the bottom of the page
  • We could link directly to the sources, or
  • We could redirect to the individual website pages like this one of Gamasutra and Destructoid that already contains some links referenced at the bottom. --Gehirn (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2014 (EDT)
My opinion is that for serious offenders like Kotaku and Gamasutra, we link to that page and say to see the main article for details. For relatively minor things, like a website publishing a single hit piece, or a writer having a tantrum on twitter, we can use refs. In order to avoid having an enormous references section, you can add <references/> at the bottom of each table to have just that table's references listed. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2014 (EDT)
Ok, that seems to be the best way to keep the page organized. --Gehirn (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2014 (EDT)


I agree (for now) that for the purpose of informing people, the worst offenders are what matter. But I think that, given enough time and contributors, we should have an extensive list that can be sorted in order of morals/least/worst offenders.

I'm wondering whether you folks believe that this is a) possible and b) desirable within the scope of this wiki?--Fitzgerald (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (EDT)

I'm ok with that idea, we could do the same style of sorting for the Support List too --SoggyKnees (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2014 (EDT)
I agree. I had added Boston Magazine for one article, but have now moved it to Narrative framing instead. --Does Not Computetalk 10:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghazi doing some legwork for us

they researched some lazy journals putting out poorly researched sensationalist hitpieces about us. Archive. Thanks! Psycho Robot (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2014 (EST)

Neogaf censorship

So I sacrificed for you all and ended up checking the NeoGAF forum to see if they still had a gamergate discussion thread. Theres one that was closed on October 25 and theres a second one that it's still open. Now, it's clear that they don't allow any dissenting opinion(just check the OP), but it shouldn't be considered as "Total censorship of GamerGate discussion ". I was wondering if this could be worded differently, in a way that they only allow anti-gamergate opinions. Perhaps as: "Total censorship of Pro-GG/Neutral opinions"? --Gehirn (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (EST)

Seems fair. I'll change it to something more appropriate. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2014 (EST)

Sites that should be avoided but not anti-gamergate

Wondering if it's all right to include sites that are crap either due to corruption or whatever reason. I mean it would have to be backed up and reasonable, not just 'this site has shit taste'. I just think Siliconera needs to be on the list for deleting pro-Vita comments.--Chanchan (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting concept, but I don't have any easy answers. My only suggestion is that we focus 100% on GamerGate relevancy until we get a well rounded resource, then worry about branching out. Psycho Robot (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

aren't boycott lists bad, mmmkay?

So, I heard devs are banned from endorsing boycott lists by antitrust laws. Could existence of this page prevent them from supporting #Gamergate?

You may be right. The title "boycott list" never sat right with me, especially once it started growing to include developers, studios, and the likes. I don't really know what else to call it though. The least I could do is change the opening to say "This is a list of people and organizations that have, for one reason or another, been considered unsupportive of GamerGate. This often includes repeating the narrative that GamerGate is nothing but harassment, and denying the existence of any ethical lapses. GamerGate supporters sometimes choose to avoid these detractors and refuse to give them business, depending on their personal viewpoint of the morality of such boycotting." Psycho Robot (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC) - add to boycott list?

anti-gg article here:

archived link here:

can we add them to the chrome addon?

thanks for the hard work folks.

their alternative url is, by the way.--Infofeed (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Added--Infofeed (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not associated with the chrome addon, you'd have to post something on their gitgud page. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Websit missing is missing from the lits. I don't know about its GamerGate coverage but the site has been known to deliver agenda-driven feminist pleasing articles. For ex., author demanded Ubisoft to deliver a female protagonist in an article. In the comment section whoever tried to put another perspective on the table were called, "misogynists" and "sexists.'

Proposal: Add Reaxxion to the boycott list

Reason: The owner of the site is none other than Rooshv. The owner of Return of Kings. He is a misogynist and stands for everything that GamerGate is against, misogyny included. On those grounds and his poisonous attitude, I'd like to suggest we add him and all of his sites to the boycott list.

anyone against this? --Infofeed (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to back up your claims, also, you must show proof that reaxxion is misogynistic. I've read some of their articles and they're pretty aggressive, but haven't seen any misogynistic one. Ratalada (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This and this and this. Haven't been trough it all, but should help.--Termostat (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Went trough the links (sorry was in a hurry yesterday evening)... I have to go with Ratalada on this... Nothing shows that RooshV hates women... On the contrary, I think he loves them too much. I can see why some groups find his views controversial tough...--Termostat (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I know very little about Roosh, but even if he is a misogynist as you allege him to be I don't think he should be in the boycott list. This isn't because I approve of misogyny, but because I don't think people should get into this boycott list for reasons that are not related to GG. For example, I'm Jewish and therefore obviously opposed to Neo-Nazism. With that being siad, I still wouldn't support having Stormfront included on our boycott list cause none of the stuff they do is related to GG. If we'll decide to put on this boycott list every website that is repugnant yet non-GG related this list will become endless. Websites should be included in this list only in cases that they are engaging in unethical practices and/or give GG unfair coverage. - Rust Cohle (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Rational wiki and Wikipedia

Rational Wiki has been taken over by freaking ryulong. Wikipedia has NorthBySouthBaranof, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom (Three more anti gaming biased asshats) 04:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by boycotting wikipedia? Do you mean not visiting the website, or just not donating anything to wikipedia and their parent foundation? If you mean the former than I don't think this is a parctical plan. For most people wikipedia is too frequently used to be given up as a source for information, I'll find it hard to do such a thing and I'm sure that many people in GG are in the same situation. Furthermore, there's no need to deny pageviews to wikipedia in the same way that we do with Kotaku/Polygon/Gamasutra, because unlike those websites wikipedia doesn't make money through advertising. If your definition of boycotting wikipedia also includes refraining from editing wikipedia than I would also advise against it. If a mass of GG supporters will quit wikipedia we won't be able to defend GG on wikipedia and/or insert info into WP that we want to pass to the public.
As for RW... I don't want to include them on our Boycott List simply becuase that would already give them more attention than what they deserve. RW is part an attack website directed at Conservapedia, part a poor man's version of Skepdic and part an SJW shitfest i.e it's a website of no actual significance. I've been following RW for quite some time before GG started, it has become so SJWfied by now that most GG supporters are already unlikely to support it in any way (browsing RW doesn't count as supporting it since they don't make money through pageviews). - Rust Cohle (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I think just saying "Don't donate to Wikipedia" is enough.
The rest of your rationale behind this is better than mine so yaa. True Kindness (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why Gamespot?

I don't see why gamespot is on here, they've done nothing wrong, and very carefully sidestepped reporting on any of this. If you wanted game journos to just report on games without any sjw shit? Gamespot is doing it right. They're effectively neutral. With a pro-leaning, since they actually posted based mom in a positive light:

So for now I've removed it.

The only changes you've made (at least under this IP account) are to remove GameSpot from the boycott. It wasnt the approved revision, so it didnt make it through, and Ive already gone and undone it. If you want to challenge the boycott list, you started off on the wrong foot by trying to just edit the page. I dunno if its worth going over seriously, since they haven't improved ethically, but I imagine the decision takes into consideration the communities opinion, not just one individual, by way of a poll or something similar. --SoggyKnees (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The boycott list is for publications that have worked against GG, not just anything arbitrarily perceived as "unethical". Don't just revert edits because you don't like them, especially if you don't have any argument against it. It's very bad for us to have innocent victims on a list like this.
This is why wikis suck. -- 05:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
On that same token, you dont just get to arbitrarily remove something from the list on your own as your sole edit, without consulting anyone/thing, especially since it has been on the list since day 1. Though, it has given me a drive to keep working on the GameSpot article in full, so if you want to start actually asking for more than your own opinion, the page should be finished up by the end of the weekend ^_^ --SoggyKnees (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I put this up on the discussion page to justify the edit and let people dispute it in a rational manner. Revert warring isn't rational.
get the fuck out
tbh is not your choice nor ours to decide if gamespot stays there or not. As soggyknees said, make a poll while presenting your idea, post it on 8chan, kia and twitter. See what people think and then after seing the results it may or may not be removed. The boycott list's targets were selected by the community, is not up to a few people to decide what is removed or not from it. Ratalada (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why aren't certain news sources on this list?

Specifically NYTimes for example

There are a lot but this is the first offender I could think of.

Pax Boycott

Can someone please tell me why GamerGate is supposed to be boycotting Penny Arcade Expo(Pax)? There reason box is empty, and lots of GGers go there. Adding no information about it doesn't help this thread. If it is about Adam Baldwin, remove it because they are not banning him.

Gamespot is also on the boycott list with no information. I do recall Gamespot making a thread saying they are neutral, however I may be wrong.

I been trying to get people to add sources for this for quite some time. I will remove those for now, because boycotting huge organizations is not a good idea just because some shithead at the top is being a shithead. Psycho Robot (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of some websites from the Boycott list

I know that censorship of discussion is terrible, but some sites (like TvTropes) might just have preferred to remain neutral, if they are censoring both sides completely they aren't taking a part at all. Also, moot has left 4chan and /pol/ did talk about removing ad support from Gawker, with the ShekelShokah threads, and there's no particularly Anti-GG talk in the site.

Agreed. Sites like TvTropes were removing threads back when it was not unreasonable to that the Quinnspiracy was just a bunch of gossip about a girl's private life. I don't think they have any justification to remain on the boycott list. A lot of this list was just copied from a github early in the history of GamerGate and not changed much since then. Things have changed a lot. I'll see what I can do about it tomorrow or sometime soon. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Any progress on this? Also, decided to give some other languages on Wikipedia a look, and imho the spanish version of the Gamergate article seems pretty neutral on the matter. Doing a rough translation of the first paragraph:
"Gamergate (also denominated GamerGate or #GamerGate to form a hashtag) is a movement related to the videogame world. A variety of generalist mediums made echo of the accusations about media bias and the absence of journalist ethics of the specialized press, as well of the harassment received by journalists, critics and developers notably involved in the controversy, including death and bombing threats."


I've seen he is being added and removed from the boycott list, I would like people to discuss about his inclusion in it before this becomes a edit war. Ratalada (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say we should leave Ralph out of the Boycott list, as he has been staunchly pro-GG so far. I think personally that he is a dick, a muckraker and a clickbaiter, but I see no consensus for boycotting him, if the recent outcry about the /v/ censorship is any indicator. --JTRetrogamer (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've said this in the IRC. He tends to take things way too far and make a lot of assumptions. If we ask for a 50, he's at a 90 before we even say anything. This article is an example. It reads as anything but professional and more like somebody's blog--which that's what Ralph Retort is. Awesomedove (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Ralph is a nobody. He shouldn't be on the boycott list because he is under no professional obligation to not be a piece of shit. Dryboner has a hate dryboner for him, and I think that he just wants to piss Ralph off. I think its funny but in the context of an encyclopedia, and the goal of this article, there's no reason for him to be listed. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree he shouldn't be here, since he's already boycotted by the people that dislike his shitty quality. But Psychorobot's comment made me notice something, wehuntedthemammoth is a blog site, yet it is in the boycott list. If this logic is the one used to remove ralph, david frutelle's site should also be removed from it. Ratalada (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
We hunted the mammoth is well covered by being anti-GG and by slandering GG, which is much more relevant to getting boycotted than the shoddiness and one-sidedness of their articles. --JTRetrogamer (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
read my comment, I'm talking about how "blog" can't be used as a way to weasel out of criticism, if you accept that ralph is out because muh blog then fruttele's should also be out because it IS a blog, regardless of what stance he has about gg. Ratalada (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

==Rational Wiki==/wiki/Gamergate Despite normally never being one sided, the RAtional Wiki is MASSIVELY Anti- gamergate and their article is completely one sided. Should we add them to the list?

Seconded. It is Ryūlóng's biased anti-GamerGate manifesto.-- 03:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't boycott trolling his ass, though, whatever you do. 12:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, any attempts to change the article to make it more objective is met with re-winds and often banning. This is repulsive bias. 23:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they should be added simply to the list because they're not really important in any way, no reason to give them any attention. Besides, how exactly does one boycott RW? They don't have any advertisements on their websites, it's not like that browsing them gives them any revenue. - Rust Cohle (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Giant Bomb?

Where does Giant Bomb fall in all this? There was the whole Patrick Klepek blacklisting Kevin Dent thing and they've never supported GG.

Here's an article they posted about it:

Saying this specifically...

"Though I'm sure some good people have been roped into this mess under this guise, the ethical concern portion of all this is largely a farce, a fallacy. But the string-pullers at the core of this mess have managed to rope in some number of unsuspecting players who do, in fact, think that this thing starts and stops with outrage over perceived ethical violations in the game journalism industry. To those of you who have been led to believe that this is all about ethics in games journalism and not about the harassment of game developers, I'll say this up front.

You have every right to not believe a word I'm saying here." --Theecakee (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

IP addresses?

Someone should compile a list of IP addresses for these lists so that way people can fully block ever going to them through a firewall or a hosts file.

Calgary Expo not boycotted?

Everyone knows about the Calgary fiasco, and if anything that should be worthy of getting on the boycott list. 08:20, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

Should we be adding Twitter?

Their pro-SJW stance is now fairly well documented, incl unverifying gamergate supporters and raising some gamergate opponents to prominence incl the Safety Counsel. 15:33, 22 March 2016 (EDT)