At the time that gamergate emerged, things around this matter may have been less clear. It should by now be self-evident to self-respecting observers that there are multiple groups that are promoting feminism in games, movies, and other media. See Sweet Baby Inc et al as other examples beyond DiGRA. Then, to call the idea a "conspiracy theory" is done intentionally to discredit the idea, and is not done to truly reflect the state of affairs. To say it plainly, this was and is a smear campaign. Citing other sources who also promote such a smear campaign should not meet the bar for posting an article with integrity. I suggest, a minimum, starting the bar at the definition of conspiracy theory... namely, "when other explanations are more probable". Look, the most probable explanation is that there are groups out there that promote this ideology, and they are now exposed as such.
I am removing the term "conspiracy theory" and replacing it with "notion" and "idea" Danielkwinsor (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The cited sources are clear in calling it a conspiracy theory. We follow the citations, not the opinions of an anonymous person on a talk page. See WP:V, WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The original cited source is biased. The author or authors who put in the citation are biased. Danielkwinsor (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Even if one were to agree with you (I don't), that is immaterial. See WP:BIASED. MrOllie (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Source articles are available through the links in google Danielkwinsor (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- 'Google it' is not a valid citation. MrOllie (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- lmgtfy Danielkwinsor (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The cited sources do call it a conspiracy theory, though. You can't just say "well I personally think they're wrong, therefore they're unusable as sources"; if you think there are higher-quality sources that dispute what they say, you have to produce them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Search term: what is the outcome of Digital Games Research Association in terms of feminism in games
- Today, google
- The Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) has played a significant role in fostering and advancing feminist game studies, although this has also been a point of contention and criticism.
- Key Outcomes and Contributions of DiGRA in terms of Feminism in Games:
- Promoting Feminist Research: DiGRA provides a platform for scholars to research and present work on gender and games, including studies on female representation, player experiences, and feminist methodologies in game studies.
- Facilitating Dialogue: DiGRA conferences and publications have been important venues for feminist scholars to discuss and debate crucial issues within the field, such as the experiences of women in gaming and the impact of sexist portrayals in games.
- Highlighting Inclusivity Issues: DiGRA research has exposed and analyzed the problematic representation of women in games, advocating for more inclusive narratives, diverse characters, and equitable gameplay experiences.
- Supporting Feminist Scholars: DiGRA has actively supported feminist scholars in game studies, providing a network and resources for them to pursue their research and work.
- Addressing Gamergate: DiGRA has been a focal point in discussions surrounding the Gamergate controversy, which involved attacks on feminist scholars and critics in the gaming community. DiGRA's then-president, Mia Consalvo, defended the work of their members and highlighted the hostility towards feminism demonstrated by some Gamergate supporters.
- Influencing Policy and Education: DiGRA's research and discussions can help inform educational practices and potentially influence policy-making to promote diversity and combat sexism in the gaming industry.
- Challenges and Criticisms:
- DiGRA has faced criticism from those who accuse the association of pushing a "feminist agenda" and colluding with the mainstream media.
- Some critics within the Gamergate movement have expressed concern that DiGRA is an ideological group masquerading as academics, attempting to indoctrinate students with feminist viewpoints.
- Despite efforts towards inclusivity, there are still challenges to address, such as the persistent issue of harassment and marginalization of women in gaming communities.
- In conclusion, DiGRA has been instrumental in the development and visibility of feminist game studies, promoting critical analysis and research on gender in gaming. However, this has also made the association a target of anti-feminist sentiment and criticism. The ongoing discussions and research within DiGRA demonstrate a commitment to addressing gender inequality and fostering a more inclusive and equitable gaming landscape. Danielkwinsor (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- That you personally think that the sources are biased or wrong still isn't a valid reason to substitute your own opinion, though. Also, don't copy and paste AI nonsense or search engine results onto the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I encourage you to take a step back, and consider your position. I have not substituted *my* opinion. This is the consensus opinion. Danielkwinsor (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- You plainly removed the language of the cited sources and substituted your personal thoughts on the matter. That is WP:OR, not WP:CONSENSUS. MrOllie (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- And edit warring to try to force your policy violation to remain on the article is itself a violation of Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- You are right, I have personal thoughts on the matter. My personal thoughts are broadly in line with the consensus thoughts as summarized by the AI search which includes cited sources. I notice those links were not included in a non-rich copy/paste. However, at this point, I again say to you that you are arguing something broadly self-evident, and additionally documented with evidence. It is not a conspiracy theory to say that these organizations, including DiGRA, are promoting feminist ideology. This evidence is including, but not limited to, DiGRA's own publications. Here is DiGRA's own paper.
- https://digraa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DiGRAA2021_paper_36.pdf
- Proceedings of DiGRA Australia 2021 © 2021 Authors & Digital Games Research Association DiGRA. Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author. Danielkwinsor (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- AI is not a reliable source. And nothing in the paper you linked indicates that DiGRA was
plotting to influence game development
; that paper analyzes games, it doesn't describe exerting influence over them. Furthermore, it doesn't mention Benjamin. We have to describe and characterize the subject of an article the way reliable sources do; trying to take a paper and arguing "I think that this paper illustrates that he's right tho!" is WP:OR. If the multiple highly-cited papers describing his views here are wrong, you should be able to find reliable sources disputing them specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
