have long been beating the drum for a shorter lead, but it's not looking like we'll be seeing victory on that front anytime soon.  And, as Dr. Bernstein notes, the problem with Gamergate is that it's the controversy which dare not define its goalsthe closest we've got is the now widely derided "it's about ethics in games journalism."  While I think the moral morass is certainly greater with abortion, it is a simpler topic in terms of defining the sides, and it is a true dichotomy.  This is not the case here.  Moreover, as gamergate settles into what I think is to be a sort of permanent background hum in the games landscape, it becomes more and more difficult to limn the idea of "anti-gamergate."  If you have some thoughts to put down in words, we're all ears, but I suspect you might find it more difficult than you first expect.  Thanks.    
 : 😢   
 : I would very much support a shorter, more concise lead. I would be very much be against sliding into a "sides" based rhetoric - gamergate itself is a pretty nebulous entity and hard to pin down the edge of, whereas "antiGG" simply doesn't exist.    

 Well, to summarize what I saw of gamergate (at least since I became aware of it), I politely disagree that it is a controversy. Gamergate started out referring to a scandal in the computer gaming subculture (in many senses of the word "scandal"), however by now it has become, roughly, some sort of general hashtag/symbol/flag for online misogyny or antifeminist sentiment (again, in both senses of the word: against specific feminists, and against feminism in general).  

 I've seen it described somewhere as only a misogynist movement but I doubt it's so simple. Actually I don't think it's even possible to call gamergate a movement at all, i.e., I don't think you can say "gamergate supporters believed X" or "statements out of gamergate" or even imply "gamergate led a harassment campaign against Zoe Quinn". It was just a big scandal involving huge anonymous angry mobs and a few high-profile people, involving the usual shit flying everywhere that goes with any internet fight. Most of the shit was directed at women. 

 My suggestion would be to first define gamergate concretely, in past tense (Gamergate WAS a scandal in 2014... ). The second sentence would then state concisely the trigger of the scandal, i.e., whatever was alleged about Zoe Quinn; possibly the scandal can be extended to include early responses to the Zoe Post as the early responses seem to be part of the lore (it seemed to have become famous from Streisand effect, do I remember wrong?). Third sentence would note the greater hubbub around the scandal and the major consequences, which make gamergate notable: harassment, people losing jobs, other serious consequences and transformations, etc. 

 Perhaps there can be a second paragraph saying something like "Nowadays, the gamergate label is linked to XYZ." where XYZ is whatever is the current usage. No third paragraph. To be honest I am not sure what is precisely the current usage as I'm never been active on twitter and I just see bits and bops coming out.    

 :One difficulty here is that Gamergate's harassment campaign continues to be active here on Wikipedia, as elsewhere. That makes past tense more difficult. A second problem is that so much of what Gamergaters claim to have believed was untrue; explaining this takes space, but failing to explain it simply repeats harassment  which is precisely how Gamergate wants to employ Wikipedia.    

 ::I