Last summer’s Gamergate controversy, a fight between those who wanted to end sexism in gaming and those who wanted to preserve it, seemed to have settled long ago. But for months, both sides of the movement have used the “Gamergate controversy” Wikipedia page as a new battlefront. Pro-Gamergaters edited the article to reflect their misogynistic views, while anti-Gamergaters revised these edits.

On Jan. 28, Wikipedia’s highest governing body decided to ban editors on both sides of the debate. From the outside, this decision seems fair. But by banning those who were trying to correct misogynistic edits, Wikipedia made the wrong choice.

The Gamergate controversy began last August. It quickly grew into a war between anti-Gamergaters advocating for a more inclusive gaming industry and pro-Gamergaters that wanted gaming to stay the same. The movement gained plenty of media attention, especially when pro-Gamergaters’ misogynistic views escalated to death and bomb threats. But even though Gamergate faded from the news and the public eye, the controversy lived on in the most unlikely of places: Wikipedia.

For months, both sides have fought to control the “Gamergate controversy” Wikipedia page. Pro-Gamergaters eventually pointed out five feminist editors who they wanted banned from the site. Anti-Gamergaters declared that the other side was using Wikipedia to promote sexism.

This situation led Wikipedia to ban editors on both sides from not only editing the Gamergate controversy article, but any article on gender altogether. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Katherine Maher defended Wikipedia’s actions in a statement released Jan. 28, saying that it was preserving Wikipedia as “a place that is welcoming for all voices.” Though this seems like a fair move, the two sides are not equally at fault.

Pro-Gamergaters were using the articles to demean women and further their misogynistic goals. They promoted a side of the gaming industry and the world that no one should stand behind.

Anti-Gamergaters advocated for social justice from the start. They fought sexism in the video game industry and simply reversed misogynistic edits on the Wikipedia page.

When determining their verdict, Wikipedia had the chance to make a progressive choice. It could have stood up for equal rights and sided with the anti-Gamergaters, but it opted for the easy way out instead. By remaining indifferent, Wikipedia effectively declared the two movements equally just.

This lapse in Wikipedia’s moral judgment shines a light on a deeper problem: 90 percent of editors are male, according to a Dec. 11 Slate article. The article also revealed several times where Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee favored anti-feminist editors. In one instance, the sole woman in a debate was the only person banned from Wikipedia. Her main opposition, two misogynistic men committing similar offenses, received negligible punishments.

Realizing their systemic bias, Wikipedia formed a Gender Gap Task Force that aimed to raise female editor participation from 10–25 percent by the end of 2015. This seemed to be a positive step for the site, but their decision in the Gamergate controversy is contradictory to their goals.

Wikipedia must work harder for more equally distributed demographics. This means not striking down underrepresented viewpoints, especially feminist ones. And although all viewpoints have their place, sometimes they must do what is morally right. In social justice controversies like Gamergate, Wikipedia needs to make progressive decisions and align itself with the right side of history.

Kathryn Krawczyk is a freshman magazine major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at kjkrawcz@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @KathrynKrawczyk.

Published on February 5, 2015 at 12:15 am