Actually it’s about ethics in Wikipedia Journalism

Update 29 Jan 15: Arbcom has made its decision, and I’ve shown what they’ve actually done in my latest post.

Give it its due, GamerGate seems to be a tire fire where the Cracked I posted a month ago about Gamergate – the internet gaming cultural movement with ethical issues. A small, technically adept group trying to pretend it’s bigger than it is and to become a social movement. Of course they are going to make a push at Wikipedia. And of course other people are going to push back. And of course this is going to create chaos that gets escalated to the highest level; The Arbitration Committee (or Arbcom for short). Arbcom are in the process of making their decision, and using a misleading blogpost as source, The Grauniad (copied on RawStory), The Mary Sue, and Gawker are both claiming that something that hasn’t happened yet (24 January 2015) is something that’s already been done and been done badly.

My audience is mixed so I’m going to start with a basic overview of Wikipedia and Arbcom. Feel free to skip to the horizontal line. But it’s important to remember that by Wikipedia standards Gamergate is nothing compared to e.g. Israel/Palestine.

What is Wikipedia?

Wikipedia, in simple terms is the most accurate and most comprehensive general purpose encyclopaedia in existence. (It’s been almost ten years since Nature showed it was on even terms with Britannica and Wikipedia’s only improved since (and has its own article on the subject while Britannica’s given up)). What does this mean?

• As an encyclopaedia Wikipedia is meant as an overview rather than as a definitive source
• It needs boundaries as to what to include so that it doesn’t get everyone’s fanfic up there with its own page.
  • The main boundary is the Notability policy (“If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.”)
    • “Notable within the community” means nothing. A better test is is there a non-trivial chance someone outside the community would have heard of them
  • Other boundaries like the Biographies of Living Persons policy (No Libel on Wikipedia and don’t use it to hurt people) exist. Incidentally, one of the reasons GamerGate gets little traction on Wikipedia is that the BLP policy and a few sharp admins on the Zoe Quinn article (and a few obvious others) catch most of the obvious accounts. Who slept with whom between living people is not a subject for Wikipedia most of the time.

What is Arbcom?

In theory everyone in Wikipedia should seek consensus. If you believe they always do and that everyone sits down happily I’m selling the Eiffel Tower for scrap metal, along with a bridge and some Florida swampland. There are two basic problem cases; Content and Behaviour – and anyone who is interested can look at the dispute resolution process. Arbcom is the very top of the tree for behavioural disputes – and its remit is only to stop people behaving badly. And they only see the worst cases.

Arbcom is frequently problematic (the Chelsea Manning fiasco springing to mind) and one running issue with Arbcom solutions is that they appear to take a “Nuke the site from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure” approach. They do this in part because anyone who’s dug in enough for a case to make it all the way to Arbcom has probably got caught up breaking the Wikipedia is not a Battleground rule. (If you’re insistent enough the earth is round against an invasion of flat-earthers you’re probably treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and if you’re not Wikipedia may end up saying the earth is flat). So a standard and very tempting solution that feels fair for the poor volunteers on Arbcom, dealing with the worst of the worst, is to declare the whole thing a battleground and throw out topic bans all round. Remember: only the most intractable problems with the most dug in editors make it as far as Arbcom. And it’s fairly normal for both sides to get hit hard by Arbcom resolutions – known on Wikipedia as Boomerangs. (A known criticism of Arbcom is that they do not protect established Wikipedians who’ve been baited over people there to cause trouble).

---

So what’s actually going on?

We’re going to start with Mark Bernstein’s blogpost that makes the basis for the Guardian, Gawker, and Raw Story articles. He claims his basis was on what he calls a proposed decision. Which is technically accurate – it’s called a proposed decision, but is in practice the start of a lengthy negotiation. It’s a collection of options that are on the table and to be handled individually. He looks at a list of options and misrepresents it as a solution that will involve them all. He further makes the strictly false claims that this is a preliminary decision (nope). And that “every feminist active in the area is to be sanctioned”. Nope. And most dishonestly disingenuously, and damningly “No sanctions at all were proposed against any of GamerGate’s warriors, save for a few disposable accounts created specifically for the purpose of being sanctioned.” Once again, nope.

• The Devil’s Advocate has been an editor of Wikipedia since 2007 and active almost continuously since then.
• Tutelary’s account has existed since January 2012; she has been active for almost a year and does a lot of anti-vandalism work – hardly a throwaway account
• Titanium Dragon has been active since 2006.

About the only thing Mark Bernstein’s blogpost says that I can consider accurate is that Gamergate is a problem.

So what’s going on? We’re going to start with the Gamergate Wiki’s “Operation Five Horsemen” which indicates five primary targets that Gamergaters want banned. The five feminist editors that certain news sources are indicating have been banned and they managed to catch a sixth. Their status under Arbcom?

• The Red Pen of Doom: This is a long standing account with an almost clean record on Wikipedia. Status: Admonished. A slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.
• NorthBySouthBaranoff: NBSB’s last 3000 edits or so have been on the subject of GamerGate.In there they have claimed sources said things that they didn’t acutally say (twice IIRC) which is an offence against Wiki’s rules. Status: Admonished, possible topic ban. (The vote is incomplete but an admonishment is all that seems likely). Update 29/01 A topic ban. IMO undeserved.
• TaraInDC: Left the articles long ago. Status: Probable topic ban but the horse is no longer in the barn. Update 29/01 – A warning.
• Tarc: Tarc has frequent flier miles to Arbcom. Involved in and I believe sanctioned in three previous Arbcom cases. Which means persistent behavioural patterns. Status: Probable topic ban. Update 29/01 Topic Banned.
• Ryulong: Ryulong has been a problem editor on this on a lot of counts – no side is ever made up completely of angels. Status: Topic ban, possible site ban. Update 29/01: Due effectively to a Wiki-Darwin Award this ended up as a site ban.
• Gamaliel: The only secondary target Gamergate got anywhere with. Status: Not even a reminder. That’s as close to an “Atta boy” as Arbcom is ever going to give.

So. Five primary targets and one of their secondaries receive judgement. One fails. One does nothing. Two slaps on the wrist (one may be more). So yes, there are a couple of topic bans from Arbcom and possibly a site ban. The only certain successes are someone with three previous Arbcom sanctions  and someone who appears to have genuinely behaved badly rather than merely heatedly. Remember: Arbcom only handles bad behaviour, not content. And there is no side so right they never behave badly.

But this is Gamergate deploying everything. What’s being done to them? Their three long term editors are also catching sanctions. Two of them have already been topic banned but there is a difference between a standard topic ban (which you need another admin to overturn) and an Arbcom topic ban (which you need Arbcom to overturn).

• The Devil’s Advocate: Active editor since 2007. Everything short of a site ban.
• Tutelary: Active anti-vandal in good standing. Topic ban from an admin upgraded to an Arbcom topic ban
• Titanium Dragon: Active editor since 2006. Topic ban upgraded to Arbcom topic ban

On Wikipedia, those are the Gators’ best. And they’ve lost all of them.

This is not in any way a win for the Gators. It’s a decision where both sides lose a little – but the Gators lose what little they had. About all the Gators have left at the end of it is single purpose accounts and accounts they made years ago. There are rules against admins editing and acting as admins on the same pages so the admins picking sockpuppets out of their teeth and watching for single purpose accounts are entirely unaffected. And as I mentioned earlier, this is a storm in a teacup by the standards of the Israel/Palestine disputes and others. And with the Biographies of Living Persons policy and the admin patrol most of the single purpose accounts breach Wikipedia policy fast.