Talk:Gamers Are Dead

From GamerGate Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Rewrite

Article needs substantial rewriting.

  • claims initially that the publication was simultaneous; this contradicts the dates given in the table. Dan Golding's piece also appears to have been published on the 27th, not the 28th. The articles appear to have been published over the span of a few days, not simultaneously.
  • claims that the articles were coordinated on GJPs. Many authors were not on the list of GJP members, and GG-friendly GJP members have not leaked any e-mails that demonstrate this collusion. With so much of the assertions of corruption and collusion being contingent on this claim, it needs substantial verification. That is currently missing.
  • provides a very one-sided narrative: many gamers weren't offended by the articles, and even believe that what they say contains substantial truth.
I'm a little bit uneducated on this particular subject, but I do think you need to somewhat substantiate your arguments. From what I'm seeing in the table, all articles except for Smith's came out on the 28th of August. As for Golding's piece, I went to the archived link of his post and saw that it was posted on the 28th. I went directly to the tumblr post and saw the same date, so I'm not sure why you say it was published on the 27th. Maybe because I'm in Israel I see a different time zone than the one seen in America, but this is only a guess on my part, it would be of help if you would clarify this matter. Seeing that nine ouf of ten articles were published on the same day, I think it's fair to say that the publication of the articles was simultaneous, or by the very least near-simultaneous.
As to your second point, I do think that your objections have some merit. Unless some game journalism insider will come out and outright say that the "gamers are dead" article were coordinated, it would be impossible to prove such a thing. With that being said, the way the sistuation is described by other people in GG does raies some suspicions. Supposedly, the parallels between these various articles are striking. If this is indeed the case (I'm planning on reading those articles later on to see whether or not this claim is true) than we have to ask how so many similar articles were published within less than a day. Maybe instead of saying that these articles were definitely coordinated, it would be better to say that there are good reasons to suspect that this is indeed the case. Note that for now I'm not taking a stand on this issue, just raising a few points. I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong. - Rust Cohle (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
In order to further demonstrate how much those articles mirror each other, I added a column to the chart noting instances in which a GAD article provides an explicit reference to another GAD article. It many cases it's quite clear that the different articles borrow inspiration from each other. EDIT: There are also some cases in which writers of GAD articles clearly see other GAD articles as being thematically with each other, I've made a note of it in the chart. - Rust Cohle (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

Should we expand on the other articles that were dropped shortly after the first wave? I know there were a handful that aren't considered the "core" articles but parrot the same ideas around the same week. --SoggyKnees (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2014 (EDT)

http://loyaltothegank.com/the-gamers-are-dead-articles/ https://archive.today/fSGpr --SoggyKnees (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Were Destructoid involved in the "Gamers are Dead" articles? 173.245.53.248 16:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

http://archive.today/20141110191309/http://www.destructoid.com/why-does-the-term-gamer-feel-important--280451.phtml --SoggyKnees (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

First sentence mentions eleven articles. Rest only talks about ten. Should be revised to be consistent.

Probably needs some DIGRA links as well. Most of the justification came from Adrian Shaws research. Army Guy (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dump of Stuff

Why Gamers Had To Die: Part 3 - Pseudo-Academics and Lazy Journalists

- CrazedMan (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-GzdKKCYAAN8QX.jpg

- CrazedMan (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

5 Ways Video Game Addiction is Ruining Gaming

- CrazedMan (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Video Game Genre Names are Bullshit, So Let’s Change Them

- CrazedMan (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

On "Gamers"

- CrazedMan (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The gender inequality in core gaming is worse than you think

- CrazedMan (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The End of Gamers

- CrazedMan (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2015 (EDT)

BECAUSE YOU’RE WORTHLESS: THE DARK SIDE OF INDIE PR

- CrazedMan (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Mod debacle on steam

The Internet Just Killed An App Store For Video Game Worlds

- CrazedMan (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Facing extreme abuse, Skyrim modders defend paid work

- CrazedMan (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Paid Steam Mod Fiasco Demonstrates Valve’s Need To Grow Up

- CrazedMan (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Valve shuts down paid 'mod' system

Valve boss responds on game 'mod' row

- CrazedMan (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Some People Are Pissed That Skyrim's Paid Mods Are Gone

- CrazedMan (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words everywhere

'It is suspected by many..', 'Many gamers were outraged', ' perceived by many gamers', 'Many view the articles' -- there's so many `many's`. Such broad statements detract from the academic tone and even worse are unsourced, making them nothing but baseless speculation. I started editing this but after 10 mins realized that I won't be able to do it withouth completely butchering the article.

Please, somebody who actually knows where these `many's` come from, provide sources and more precise numbers.

--141.101.88.165 11:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove certain articles from the list

There are some article that are currently listed by this wiki as Gamers Are Dead articles even though I do not think they should be listed as such:

  • Put the Hate on Hold by Fenriff - While this was posted on Destructoid's website, it was not written by any of their staff members. Destructoiod allows any putz to open a blog on their site and Fenriff just happens to be one those putzes, he's not otherwise affiliated with them. I do think that blog posts can be listed as GAD articles if their authors are people who hold sway among gaming journalists (like Dan Golding), but as far as I can tell this condition does not apply to Fenriff. I did a google search on him and he seems to be a nobdoy; the title of Literaly Who applies him even more than it applies to Quinn or Brianna.
  • Why we need more developers like Zoe Quinn by Dan Whitehead - The content of this article does not seem to overlap in any significant way with the content of the other GAD articles. It briefly mentions the scrunity Quinn recieved a the time, but it does so in a manner that is not condemnful of critics of Quinn and the gaming press. Overall I couldn't find any of the rethoric characteristic of the other GAD articles. Nothing about gamer culture being inherently sexist, nothing about the end of gamer identity or anything of that sort. An article does not become a GAD article merely by expressing approval of Quinn's work.
  • Game Developer Association Condemns Harassment, Offers Help to Targeted Devs - Should be removed from the list for the same reasons for which the previous article should be removed. Like other GAD articles, it does mention death threats against Anita and the hacking of Phil Fish. But unlike other GAD articles, it does not use these instances of harrasment as a way to denounce gamers as a bunch of reactionary boneheads. If said hacking and death threats occured as described by their alleged victims (I'm not totally sure whether the "James Dobson" threats against Anita are fake or not but that's a subject for a different debate) they must be denounced by us in an unequivocal manner. I have no problems with people denouncing death threats and hackings; my problem is with people trying to blame all of gamers/critics of the game press/critics of SJWs for harassment.

What do you think fellow editors? - Rust Cohle (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I support all 3 motions. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
While the last 2 are something I agree with, the DToid article you link is completely different from the one in the chart. We link Jonathan Holmes's 'Why does the term 'gamer' feel important?: There are gamers at the gate, but they may already be dead' --SoggyKnees (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Put the Hate on Hold is linked in addition to the one you listed. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Odd, feel free to toss them out. Id take a quick cursory glance over the old lists and see if theres one that replaced. I dont particularly remember the DToid Blog one ever coming up before --SoggyKnees (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)