FULL DATA SET for “Almost No One Sided with #GamerGate”

This page contains all of the data that was gathered for a small research project that attempted to answer the question: What did most people think about GamerGate?
Click here to read the paper for this research project.
There are a total of 1,183 sources from 90 different publications. Each publication is ordered by their popularity (as measured by their Alexa.com Global Ranking), and the sources for each publication are ordered chronologically.
Note: If a publication’s listed headline differs from the one in the source, it’s because some articles have one headline written for search results/promotions and another headline that’s listed at the top of the actual article.

This is the end of the list. Click here to continue reading the research paper.

2 thoughts on “FULL DATA SET for “Almost No One Sided with #GamerGate””

  1. I know this is an old post, but the dataset really interested me! Since I don’t have time to read the 200+ or so articles, my quick question is this: Did any of the articles about Gamergate actually uncover or document any efforts by supporters to facilitate, organize, or encourage any harassment or threats against women?
    Because clicking through, most of the articles just cite other articles, and the few that do cite threats or toxic harassment come from accounts with no clear connection to Gamergate. I tried searching 8chan and kotakuinaction, but both sites banned attempted organized harassment and threats from the start.
    Maybe the harassment and threats were mostly concentrated on twitter, but so far every academic study hasn’t been able to establish this. One Cornell study about Gamergate analyzed 1.5 million tweets from supporters, and concluded that Gamergate supporters were no more hateful than the average twitter user, and half as likely to get banned:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.07784
    Let me know what you think!

    Reply

    • From what I remember after all these years was that there definitely wasn’t a lot of investigative journalism trying to uncover or unmask more details about GamerGate’s behind-the-scenes tactical discussions. The most significant investigation came from Zoe Quinn herself when she simply monitored GamerGate IRC chats and published the logs herself:
      https://twitter.com/UnburntWitch/status/508174331243810817
      https://twitter.com/UnburntWitch/status/508184768815448064
      Some journalists wrote articles about this:
      Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/
      Mary Sue: https://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-chat-logs/
      Unfortunately most publications never did this deep investigative work themselves, and that is a real failure. It continues to be rare to see these kinds of investigative tactics used today even though there’s increased scrutiny being placed on these far right groups and their ties to Nazism. There’s a small number of notable exceptions, but for the most part, most journalists (most people, for that matter) just aren’t fluent enough in the internet culture of IRCs, chan boards, reddit, and even discord, to know where to look and how to infiltrate these groups without giving themselves away.
      I think everyone was really caught off guard, it left everyone kind of stunned. There was just this overwhelming sense of disbelief that these people were really this bad. This led a lot of the spotlight to be focused on the sheer existence of the mob, rather than investigating deeper questions like “how are they organizing, how can we uncover them?” I think the anonymous nature of the mob led many journalists to assume that there just weren’t any leads to follow. But perhaps the most likely reason is that few publications, if any, were funding any investigative reporting surrounding GamerGate. Niche media outlets (about films, games, tech) either rarely have that kind of budget, or they’re simply not the kind of outlet that would ever do that kind of reporting.
      But aside from investigations, did journalists document the harassment in any extensive way? ? Not really. Plenty did quote and/or link to a few notable tweets (literally everyone in the United States read the school shooting threat against Anita), but journalists aren’t typically in the business of cataloging data like that; that’s more of an academic/research thing to do. I imagine most journalists just opened twitter and had the first-hand experience of watching their colleagues get targeted. Lots and lots of people saw the mob first-hand through Twitter, so there just wasn’t much skepticism that would have merited the laying out of such extensive proof of the mob’s existence and actions. Plus, many of the worst threats may have been deemed too sensitive to show the public, and so rather than documenting it directly, it would have been more common to summarize or allude to the contents of the threat rather than republishing it in its entirety.
      Some thoughts on the fact that pieces link to other pieces. It’s important to keep in mind the time difference between many of these articles. It’s common for news articles to link to past developments of the same story in order to help readers understand the full context of an event. It’s also important to distinguish between news reports by journalists/reporters and blogs/columns/op-eds by other writers. It’s common for opinion pieces to link to reporting that backs up their claims, especially among the various pieces pleading for the horrors to stop. The line between news reports and blog content has been blurred a lot lately–especially in niche news sites like tech blogs and videogame news sites–so that’s another thing to watch out for.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *