Digital Spyreports that "GamerGate is a movement claiming to be fighting for ethical coverage of video games [in the media], but that has been accused of supporting harassment of women within the industry." Editing the GamerGate article on Wikipedia has been a controversial and contentious exercise, culminating in a currently open Arbitration case involving numerous editors on both sides of the issue as well as a number of administrators, including this author. A source of discontent with Wikipedia has been r/KotakuInAction, a Reddit forum populated by those who identify with the GamerGate movement, including a number of editors active on the Wikipedia article. On December 18, a Reddit user posted a complaint he emailed to Wales and Wales' response. Wales verified that the emails were authentic.
In the email, the user told Wales he would refuse to donate to Wikipedia's fundraising efforts because of his displeasure with the current state of the Wikipedia article on GamerGate, a frequent complaint on KotakuInAction and other online GamerGate forums. The user also complained about the December 13 deletion of a page on the Wikia that is devoted to GamerGate. (Like Wikipedia, Wikia was co-founded by Wales.) That Wikia page listed a number of Wikipedia editors and administrators, including this author, as "hostile users".
The user wrote:
Here's the problem: Wikipedia's complete lack of any sort of attempt at neutrality regarding Gamergate is giving me serious ethical qualms about [donating to Wikipedia]. I don't want to financially support an organization that claims to be a neutral, impartial source of information on all things that then goes on to try to push an agenda and spin a narrative of an author's choosing. And then after the deletion of the Wikia page documenting editor abuse and corruption, I CERTAINLY don't feel comfortable giving money when the founder of the site publicly condones such actions.
...Wikipedia is not for sale, not to any donors, so even if donations were dropping, that would not mean to me that we should compromise on our principles of quality and neutrality in response to a pressure group.
My point here is not to say that there is nothing wrong with the article - I actually think it needs a fair amount of work. But I want you and others to understand that threatening people is not helpful.
I've recently seen web pages in which people who are - and I don't know how else to put it - vicious assholes - are gathering data to attack the personal lives of volunteers. It is very difficult for me to buy into the notion that gamergate is "really about ethics in journalism" when every single experience I have personally had with it involved pro-gg people insulting, threatening, doxxing, etc.
Wales continued his responses to complaints about these issues on Twitter, replying to one GamerGate supporter and Wikipedia editor that the deleted Wikia page "was a long hitlist of editors. Much nastiness. Exactly the kind of viciousness that [GamerGate] is famous for."
While Wales was criticized by GamerGate supporters, The Mary Suepraised Wales' response, writing that he was "handling it admirably".
Viva la información: The Guardiandiscusses (December 23) how Cubans are circumventing the widespread lack of Internet access in their country. Those with reliable high-speed access sell and distribute information on hard drives for offline usage. Wikipedia in particular is usually downloaded in packets of 2–5 gigabytes that people keep on their phones for offline usage.
Charity begins on phones: CNBCdiscusses (December 20) the difficulties millennials have donating to charities using popular technological means such as Twitter or mobile devices and talks with one MIT student who found it easier to buy a vacuum on his phone than to donate to Wikipedia.
Amazon art identification: Mashablereports on a December 19 update to the Fire Phone's Firefly tool. Firefly now uses Wikipedia to identify over 2000 famous works of art.