Discussion History Main / ColdReading

Exactly. It\\\'s not like people are exaggerating; the links show that that was \\\'\\\'exactly\\\'\\\' what happened. And this page has an issue with undue weight as-is (about 2-5% of the complaints about the project were the things detailed on the page, 95-98% of it was anti-feminist trolling).

I don\\\'t want to be banned either, but I agree with it being re-added without the Natter.

Exactly. It\\\'s not like people are exaggerating; the links show that that was \\\'\\\'exactly\\\'\\\' what happened. And this page has an issue with undue weight as-is (about 2-5% of the complaints about the project were the things detailed on the page, 95-98% of it was anti-feminist trolling).

Exactly. It\\\'s not just that the media noticed the bad stuff; the anti-feminist trolling and threats made up about 95-98% of the \\\"criticism\\\" of Sarkeesian and her project, while only about 2-5% was the stuff being outlined on the page. The fact that the former is only mentioned a little and couched in misleading weasel words, while the latter is detailed meticulously, gives a reader an inaccurate impression of how much of the \\\"debate\\\" each part took up. Maybe putting it under HateDumb was incendiary, but there should be a way to report on the controversy accurately without running into RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment.

(Hell, there was a guy who made a video game \\\'\\\'about beating Sarkeesian up\\\'\\\' as his response. You can\\\'t understate that.)

Unfortunately, the Fast One\\\'s edit explanation didn\\\'t give us much of an idea of what specifically he thought the problem was, or how we can go forward with this page.

Exactly. It\\\'s not just that the media noticed the bad stuff; the anti-feminist trolling and threats made up about 95-98% of the \\\"criticism\\\" of Sarkeesian and her project, while only about 2-5% was the stuff being outlined on the page. The fact that the former is only mentioned a little and couched in misleading weasel words, while the latter is detailed meticulously, gives a reader an inaccurate impression of how much of the \\\"debate\\\" each part took up. Maybe putting it under HateDumb was incendiary, but there should be a way to report on the controversy accurately without running into RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment.

(Hell, there was a guy who made a video game \\\'\\\'about beating Sarkeesian up\\\'\\\' as his response. You can\\\'t understand how much of a Bad Thing that is.)

Unfortunately, the Fast One\\\'s edit explanation didn\\\'t give us much of an idea of what specifically he thought the problem was, or how we can go forward with this page.

Exactly. It\\\'s not just that the media noticed the bad stuff; the anti-feminist trolling and threats made up about 95-98% of the \\\"criticism\\\" of Sarkeesian and her project, while only about 2-5% was the stuff being outlined on the page. The fact that the former is only mentioned a little and couched in misleading weasel words, while the latter is detailed meticulously, gives a reader an inaccurate impression of how much of the \\\"debate\\\" each part took up. Maybe putting it under HateDumb was incendiary, but there should be a way to report on the controversy accurately without running into RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment.

I\\\'d like to know what the Fast One or one of the other staff members think in the discussion here, because simply writing \\\"This is not a debate\\\" doesn\\\'t tell us much for how we should go forward with this page.

Exactly. It\\\'s not just that the media noticed the bad stuff; the anti-feminist trolling and threats made up about 95-98% of the \\\"criticism\\\" of Sarkeesian and her project, while only about 2-5% was the stuff being outlined on the page. The fact that the former is only mentioned a little and couched in misleading weasel words, while the latter is detailed meticulously, isn\\\'t a fair or accurate reflection of what really happened. Maybe using the HateDumb trope was too incendiary, but there should be some mention of how bad the backlash got - or why bother creating a works page for it at all if we\\\'re not going to report it accurately?

I\\\'d like to know what the Fast One or one of the other staff members think in the discussion here, because simply writing \\\"This is not a debate\\\" doesn\\\'t tell us much for how we should go forward with this page.

Exactly. It\\\'s not just that the media noticed the bad stuff; the anti-feminist trolling and threats made up about 95-98% of the \\\"criticism\\\" of Sarkeesian and her project, while only about 2-5% was the stuff being outlined on the page. The fact that the former is only mentioned a little and couched in misleading weasel words, while the latter is detailed meticulously, isn\\\'t a fair or accurate reflection of what really happened. Maybe using the HateDumb trope was too incendiary, but there should be some mention of how bad the backlash got - or why bother creating a works page for it at all if we\\\'re not going to report it accurately?

I agree completely. It\\\'s not just that the media noticed; probably only around 2-5% of her \\\"criticism\\\" is the stuff getting outlined in detail on the YMMV page, while 95-98% of it was anti-feminist trolling. Hell, there was a popular flash game \\\'\\\'about beating her up\\\'\\\'. Maybe it was too incendiary to put it under HateDumb, but it needs to be mentioned on the page AS IT IS, not couched in weasel words that downplay it, or we\\\'re giving the \\\"legitimate criticisms\\\" (I\\\'m not convinced the stuff about \\\"scamming\\\" isn\\\'t concern-trolling) undue weight.

I agree completely. It\\\'s not just that the media noticed; probably only around 2-5% of her \\\"criticism\\\" is the stuff getting outlined in detail on the YMMV page, while 95-98% of it was anti-feminist trolling. Hell, there was a popular flash game \\\'\\\'about beating her up\\\'\\\'.

As a feminist of a different strain from Sarkeesian, I have some criticisms of her work, which I detailed on the page. But it seems like the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment is being distorted here to give those more \\\"legitimate\\\" criticisms of her undue weight, while the more abundant trolling is couched in downplaying weasel words to avoid inciting rage-edits. Why bother having the work page at all if we\\\'re not going to report it accurately?

I agree completely. It\\\'s not just that the media noticed; probably only around 2-5% of her \\\"criticism\\\" is the stuff getting outlined in detail on the YMMV page, while 95-98% of it was anti-feminist trolling. Hell, some guy made a flash game \\\'\\\'about beating her up.\\\'\\\'

As a feminist of a different strain from Sarkeesian, I have some criticisms of her work, which I detailed on the page. But it seems like the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment is being distorted here to give those more \\\"legitimate\\\" criticisms of her undue weight, while the more abundant trolling is couched in downplaying weasel words to avoid inciting rage-edits. Why bother having the work page at all if we\\\'re not going to report it accurately?

I agree completely. It\\\'s not just that the media noticed; probably only around 2-5% of her \\\"criticism\\\" is the stuff getting outlined in detail on the YMMV page, while 95-98% of it was anti-feminist trolling. Hell, some guy made a flash game \\\'\\\'about beating her up.\\\'\\\' (And the \\\"scamming\\\" concern people keep posting over and over mostly came from concern trolls who actually couldn\\\'t care less how feminist gamers are spending their money.)

As a feminist of a different strain from Sarkeesian, I have some criticisms of her work, which I detailed on the page. But it seems like the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment is being distorted here to give those more \\\"legitimate\\\" criticisms of her undue weight, while the more abundant trolling is couched in downplaying weasel words to avoid inciting rage-edits. Why bother having the work page at all if we\\\'re not going to report it accurately?

Yeah, what\\\'s annoying me about the approach to this is that as far as the \\\"criticism\\\" of her went, probably only around 2-5% of it is the stuff getting outlined in detail on the YMMV page, while 95-98% of it was anti-feminist trolling. Hell, some guy made a flash game \\\'\\\'about beating her up.\\\'\\\' Plus, a lot of the stuff about her \\\"scamming\\\" people was concern trolling from people who actually couldn\\\'t care less how feminist gamers are spending their money.

As a feminist of a different strain from Sarkeesian, I have some criticisms of her work, which I detailed on the page. But it seems like the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment is being distorted here to give those more \\\"legitimate\\\" criticisms of her undue weight, while the more abundant trolling is couched in downplaying weasel words to avoid inciting rage-edits. Why bother having the work page at all if we\\\'re not going to report it accurately?

If anyone is interested in reading the article about the French horoscope experiment mentioned on this page, it was performed by Michel Gauquelin in 1979. Course, I think it was only detailed in his book \\\'Dreams and illusions of astrology\\\', so might be a bit tricky to get ahold of.