The Wikipedia Post — Appendix A: Anita Sarkeesian

One of the major side conflicts in the GamerGate dispute on Wikipedia involved the article on Anita Sarkeesian. A major point of conflict existed over whether to include criticism of the feminist YouTuber’s videos. Initially, this was not much of a fight as “reliable” sources effectively blacked-out coverage of all legitimate criticism to focus on harassment, with editors quite happy to provide sources on the latter. Some of these editors were also active on the GamerGate article advancing an anti-GamerGate agenda(See Part 3).

The more GamerGate went on, however, the more sources began cropping up that could be used for criticism in Sarkeesian’s page under Wikipedia’s standards. However, various editors effectively became her sycophants by coming up with creative ways to exclude any criticism, even when cited to sources considered reliable on Wikipedia, and her page remains criticism-free to this day. The sources that came up, and the ways they were rejected, provide a glimpse into how even Wikipedia’s most sacred values are easily corrupted for determined groups dominating a page.

• Sarkeesian vs Truth, Part I: Self-Appointed Straw Feminist and Trojan Horse for Censorship in GameSided by Mytheos Holt

Reasons given for dismissal: the very first comment by editor Zero Serenity on the piece argued it was not included in the list of reliable sources for video gaming content compiled by the group dedicated to editing about video games. Although the page is not meant to be an exhaustive list of sources and absence does not count against reliability, this argument would be raised repeatedly during discussion. More offensive were arguments that Holt’s conservative history and work for conservative news outlets might make him unreliable as a source for criticism, when all Wikipedia policies strictly require is attributing opinion.

Worse was an attempt by Zero to argue that Holt’s position was wrong or a strawman in order to exclude his view. Though this kind of reasoning is against Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and representing all valid views, it was not treated as controversial at any time in the discussion. Cúchullain, one of the protectors of the Five Horsemen of Wikibias, would seek to exclude the piece by primarily reiterating that it was a “blog” to discredit it based on policies prohibiting the use of self-published blogs on Wikipedia, which did not apply to GameSided. Part of their advantage in this discussion was the site’s generally unclear status. Incidentally, when the source was actually taken to the page for determining reliable sources on video game articles, an editor suggested Holt could be reliable, though not necessarily GameSided as a whole.

• Conservative group issues video lambasting gaming’s feminist critics by Colin Campbell in Polygon
• Conservative Group to Video Game Gender Critics — “Stand Down” by Eddie Makuch in GameSpot
• Critic Argues That Game Culture Is For Guys by Stephen Totilo in Kotaku
• Conservative Think Tank: Feminists Want ‘The Male Video Game Culture To Die’ by Lauren C. Williams in ThinkProgress
• The reactionaries are just plain wrong about gaming’s future by Colin Campbell in Polygon

Reason given for dismissal: initial reaction to the first few pieces was reluctance to include them as sources for criticism of Sarkeesian. As the sources concerned an American Enterprise Institute video by Christina Hoff Sommers criticizing Sarkeesian and feminist gaming critics, many focused on the content of the video rather than than the sources themselves. It was first argued by Zero Serenity that the articles weren’t really about Sarkeesian and eventually argued by Cúchullain that the video wasn’t really criticizing Sarkeesian.

When sources discussing it kept coming and getting into more detail, this reluctance would be temporarily overcome and a paragraph mentioning criticism of Sarkeesian would finally appear on the page. This would be short-lived as Zero Serenity would put forward a request to remove the section. In arguing against it, Zero mainly dismissed the above coverage by focusing on the video itself only referencing her displaying Sarkeesian’s image while providing a list of criticisms commonly directed at feminist critics, such as Sarkeesian. Where previously Cúchullain had agreed to inclusion of Sommers, he relented the moment he had back-up. This claim that, regardless of what sources say, the video was really not criticizing her would be the predominant point raised by opponents and end with the paragraph being removed.

• “Anita Sarkeesian Stole my Artwork” Claims Blogger by Steven Bogos in The Escapist
• Fanartist who accused Sarkeesian of art theft banned from Reddit by Aja Romano in The Daily Dot
• Feminist Frequency Removes Fan Art From Tropes Vs. Women Banner by Andy Chalk in The Escapist
• Sarkeesian and Copyright: Testing the Boundaries of ‘Transformative’ Fair Use in Online Critique by Joe Newman in Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal

Reasons given for dismissal: This touches on a controversy involving Sarkeesian just a few months before GamerGate where it was found she used uncredited fan-art rather than official art for one of the video game characters included on her Kickstarter fundraising banner. While previously being discussed on the talk page, Zero Serenity would re-ignite the issue by adding the Cardozo link to a list of “suggested sources” for improving the article. Other articles would be located and new arguments would, naturally, be given for why it should be excluded.

One argument given is that the dispute itself was too trivial and that the multiple sources did not make it less trivial, even suggesting Cardozo going on at length as to why the controversy wasn’t a legal issue meant it wasn’t worth mentioning. Many cited the previous consensus on excluding it, which was when the only source they knew about was one of the Escapist pieces. As usual, Cúchullain would present the most egregious response. During the previous discussion, Cúchullain had rejected mention due to only one source being found and it not being by an expert. Now that multiple sources were available, one from a highly-qualified expert in intellectual property law at the journal of a law school particularly noted for its speciality in intellectual property law, he resorted to labeling it dismissively as a blog.

• Tropes vs Anita Sarkeesian: on passing off anti-feminist nonsense as critique by Ian Steadman in The New Statesman
• Criticism Of Anita Sarkeesian & “Tropes vs. Women” Comes In 4 Groundless Forms by Chris Tognotti in Bustle
• Is it a fair game? in The Asian Age
• Gamer Critic Anita Sarkeesian Faces Rape And Murder Threats by Joseph Medina in Inquisitr
• Critic Anita Sarkeesian receives online death threats after latest Feminist Frequency video on games by Jeff Grubb in VentureBeat
• Twitter Suspends Anita Sarkeesian Critic for ‘Abusive Behavior’ by Derek Strickland in Brightside News (now VRWorld)

Reasons given for dismissal: While many of these pieces would be easily understood as permitted sources by Wikipedia standards, those portraying the best image of Sarkeesian’s critics would be singled out during discussion for harsh and unwarranted criticism so as to exclude all sources but those treating her critics more viciously. Cúchullain, once more, would take the lead in arguing against any sources fairly presenting sincere criticism. On Asian Age, Cúchullain took the unusual step of arguing against it as a source due it not having a byline, which is hardly an unprecedented practice in sources considered reliable on Wikipedia.

He would initially argue against Inquisitr being used as a source suggesting they would essentially let anyone write for them, despite arguments they appeared to have requirements for writers to have multiple published works and included large numbers of professional staff. Once he realized the source was treating Sarkeesian’s critics harshly, such as by pinning some of Sarkeesian’s harassment on YouTuber Phil Mason a.k.a. Thunderf00t, he changed his tune to be more favorable of using it as a source. In arguing against Bright Side of News, Cúchullain would highlight that Strickland was not officially listed as staff, despite a long background in games journalism. He would also argue obscenely that they did not describe their review process, even though they had an editorial team and required pieces to be backed up with sources, and suggested this was essentially “self-published” to argue it be excluded.

After whittling down the “reliable” sources to those most critical of Sarkeesian’s critics, these editors proceeded to misrepresent and cherry-pick those sources for the most unfavorable characterization of said critics. Peter Isotalo argued they should be likened to conspiracy theorists and crackpots based off these sources. The sources, at most, accused her critics of misunderstanding Sarkeesian’s criticism or raising points that did not mean her statements were inaccurate. Isotalo would suggest a paragraph to this effect, casting criticisms as “nonsense” and associating it with harassment and abuse, including the “most violent and dangerous threats” made against Sarkeesian. VentureBeat, which acknowledged some of Sarkeesian’s claims were erroneous yet cast critics as making malicious exaggerations, was excluded from this proposal. His proposal failed due to divisions over whether it treated her critics as too credible.

• The Gender Games, Part 2: Videogames Meet Feminism by Cathy Young in RealClearPolitics
• Vile foes of feminist game critic miss mark by Neil Steinburg in The Chicago Sun-Times
• Pixelated Prostitution: Feminist Sex Work Debate Bleeds Into Video Games by Noah Berlatsky in Newsweek (originally published in Reason)

Reasons given for dismissal: While the article on Anita Sarkeesian has been a primary focus of discussion, for some time a Wikipedia article has also existed on her series Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. While each of the above sources was viewed as appropriate for including a small bit of criticism on the less-trafficked article on the series, attempts at mentioning them on the article for Sarkeesian were often rebuffed by suggesting it was really about her video series and therefore belonged in that article. Eventually, this was used to remove most discussion of her videos from her article, leaving an article that almost entirely discusses Sarkeesian in the context of harassment.

• Gamergate Camgirl Imitates Feminist Role Model by Leigh Cuen in Vocativ
• Sarkeesian Imitator Blasts The Critic’s Views On Sex Workers by Elizabeth Kulze with Leigh Cuen in Vocativ
• Sex worker parodies #Gamergate figure Anita Sarkeesian in news.com.au

Reasons given for dismissal: Outside a vague and sheepish dismissal claiming the sources were not “reliable” most of the criticism focused on the question of “due weight” by arguing a parody of Sarkeesian is not worthy of including in her page given the amount of reliable sourcing discussing it. Editors compared it to someone parodying then-President of the United States Barack Obama or Sarah Palin and suggested a similar amount of coverage was necessary to include even the barest mention of it. A broader point that the parody was specifically highlighting criticisms noted in Newsweek and could be used to highlight those issues was deflected by focusing on the above comparisons to trivialize the matter.

Moves to exclude unflattering information related to Sarkeesian were not limited to keeping out criticism of her behavior. Some time after the GamerGate controversy had died down, Sarkeesian launched into a vitriolic attack on one of her YouTube critics at a Vidcon panel when she saw him in attendance. Even though the critic only sat quietly watching her panel, Sarkeesian branded him a “harasser” and a “garbage human” because of his videos criticizing her work.

Despite numerous sources discussing the incident and even being sympathetic to Sarkeesian’s unprovoked verbal assault, the usual editors who kept out criticism would work to keep mentioning of this sub-par behavior by the feminist YouTuber out of her article. Cúchullain, in his usual manner, spun the situation as one that, if included, should only be about smearing her critics as harassers rather than noting Sarkeesian’s conduct itself violated Vidcon harassment policies.

Articles on Wikipedia are expected to adhere to a neutral point of view and that means presenting a comprehensive description of all significant views regarding a subject. Before GamerGate some justification existed for excluding criticism as essentially no sources contained anything more meaningful about Sarkeesian than the fact of her being harassed. Once that excuse was no longer possible to maintain, a group of dedicated supporters were able to keep her page clean of anything unflattering using various dishonest tactics such as selective reading of sources and policies to make her page a whitewashed puff piece, just as a similarly dedicated group with some overlap has maintained the GamerGate article as a blackwash excluding as much positive material as possible. Editors contesting this situation have increasingly been shut down or banned and told to review the previous discussions where consensus was against including criticism. Meanwhile, those who have made their sympathies for Sarkeesian clear, continue to control the article.

Return to Table of Contents