The verdict has been handed down and multiple editors who have been warring over the ideological presentation of the #GamerGate Wikipedia entry have been banned. The bans have been handed out across the board for many of the editors, whether they were labeled as pro or anti.
Over on the Wikipedia Arbitration page, the sanctions have been handed out after months of deliberation, information sifting and lots of sociopolitical warmongering. The original article for #GamerGate on Wikipedia was highly biased and poorly put together, resulting in a lot of drama on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia.
The short gist of the matter is that one of the most controversial figures editing the #GamerGate article, Ryulong, has been banned from the English rendition of Wikipedia for an entire year. As detailed on the Arbitration page…
“[Ryulong] is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.”
Ryulong has also been indefinitely banned from the #GamerGate Wikipedia entry. He was responsible for making more than 19% of the edits to the entry, pushing it into laughable territory with its clearly biased angle.
Ryulong was also responsible for having made more than 200 edits to the #GamerGate Wiki entry back in late September.
All of the edit warring caused Wikipedia’s administrators to step in, with the Arbitration Committee stating…
“The article on the Gamergate controversy was created in early September 2014; since then, the dispute has included dozens of peripheral articles and biographies and scores of editors. Attempts to resolve it in various fora have been disrupted by torrents of wide-ranging allegations and counter-allegations, by the importation of off-wiki feuds, and by the arrival of IP editors and people using throwaway accounts.”
The edits and additions to the article ended up causing the entry to become highly inaccurate, misinformed and poorly structured.
Ryulong was also paid by a group with vested interest in undermining the accuracy of the #GamerGate Wikipedia page, as chronicled on a Kotaku in Action post.
Ryulong was just one of 11 editors banned from making anymore edits to the #GamerGate entry, with the ArbCom stating…
“Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.”
The Wikipedia editors banned from the #GamerGate topic, apart from Ryulong, include Tarc, NorthBySouthBaranof, The Devil’s Advocate, Tutelary, ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756, Titanium Dragon, Loganmac and Willhesucceed.
Of course, Ryulong was the one committing the most egregious acts by participating in a lot of insufferably immature conduct, including getting into a spat with Slate writer David Auerbach, which carried over from the talk page of Wikipedia and into the social drama space of Twitter.
It should go without saying that it speaks volumes when a Wikipedia editor misquotes a writer and then argues about wanting to maintain a position of spreading misinformation.
Thankfully, the ArbCom acknowledged that they want Wikipedia to maintain some semblance of accuracy and similitude to a respectable encyclopedia and has opted to remove disruptive, misinformative and impertinent individuals from their ranks.
As noted on the resolution page of the #GamerGate case, it’s stated…
“The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.”
The case finishes with a plea and request for neutral parties to contribute to the #GamerGate article. There is also a suggestion for editors to finely comb sources when structuring the article so accurate and factual information is what the entry is composed of, instead of hollow ideological claims, slanderous defamation and Gawker-tier character assassination of the individuals involved.
Hopefully Wikipedia can restore some of its integrity by ensuring that proper editors are allowed to rewrite the #GamerGate entry and do right by everyone and every event involved.