Enjoy. Edits/FAQ are pretty amusing.
Q1: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to GamerGate.[hide]
A1: That sort of source doesn't comply with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Wikipedia considers them to be 'self published', which means that they do not meet the standards for sources that introduce contentious material into a biography of a living person. If we were to use these sources to add material to articles, all sorts of gossip, slander and libelous material would find its way in, which would a) tarnish the quality of Wikipedia's information and b) potentially open up Wikipedia to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people.
Q2: Why is Wikipedia preventing me from editing? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other?[hide]
A2: Content on Wikipedia is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (ex, Vox, Wall Street Journal, etc). The article and its talk page is under protection due to constant edit warring and attraction of people with negative comments prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP).
Q3: Can I use a particular article as a source?[hide]
A3: What sources can be used in Wikipedia is governed by our reliable sources policy, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard.
Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story! Why can't we use other sources?[hide]
A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Wikipedia documents what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Wikipedia's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world, it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources.
Doing a websearch to find out what "Gamergate" referred to exactly, I come across two good explanations, but as usual I go to Wikipedia too... ...only to find an article obviously written to promote feminism. The feminist editing of Wikipedia is destroying Wikipedia's credibility as an unbiased source. This is an emberassment. "ingrained issues of sexism and mysogyny" in the second sentence, jesus christ...