"

 The Gamergate Conspiracy 

We have discussed at some length above whether Gamergate should be described as a ""controversy,"" as we do now, or as a ""movement”, as Gamergate supporters apparently prefer.  The sources clearly have a hard time finding the precise language to use here. So do we. Let’s look at all the options.

A movement is “a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.” The members, or the leaders, of a movement are identifiable people, and the shared ideas are typically put forth in a manifesto or platform. Examples include the labor movement, the temperance movement, the Impressionist movement, and the Chautauqua movement. Even the resistance movements of the Second World War were characterized by organization; indeed, organization is what distinguishes an “organized resistance,”  and a resistance necessarily adheres to stated principles.  Gamergate lacks leadership, organization, or a statement of principles. Gamergate is not a movement; nomovement come to mind that lacks either leadership and manifesto.

A controversy is “a dispute, a prolonged public disagreement.” Controversy surrounds Gamergate; indeed, that controversy has made Gamergate notable. Some have argued here at some length that, while controversy surrounds Gamergate, Gamergate is not a controversy. They do have a point: our sources do write of “Gamergate supporters,” but no one writes about “Watergate supporters” or “Tea Pot Dome supporters.”    Our current lede uses “controversy” as a generous fiction: it's not perfect, but it’s been satisfactory for some time and I have no strong objection to maintaining it.

We do have a word that does apply rigorously to Gamergate as it is described by the sources: that word is conspiracy A conspiracy is “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful,” and this is precisely what our sources describe.  Gamergate’s absence of visible leadership and the lack of expressed principles aren’t compatible with the behaviors of movements but are, of course, quite common in conspiracies from Alcibiades to Cataline and onward.

“Plot” might be an alternative to “conspiracy,” though it is probably even more pejorative. “Scheme” would also work in its American usage, but its use in British English to describe a governmental or institutional programme would cause confusion.  “Crusade” captures the fervor of Gamergate’s supporters and the violence of their sentiments, but crusades have a stated goal. Likewise, Gamergate cannot be a “campaign” or a “drive” as it lacks an objective toward which to it steer. “Cabal” is possible, I suppose.

But “conspiracy” is precise. “Conspiracy” also lets us finesse the problem of Gamergate being said to “claim” to be a movement. Who can credibly assert that claim? Someone might claim that Gamergate is a clam, or a festival, or a joke: how should we judge? If someone claims it’s one thing, and someone else claims it’s not, how do we distinguish?  In two ways: WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.  Following the latter, it’s hard to see that Gamergate can be made to fit the definition of “movement,” but it clearly fits the definition of “conspiracy” perfectly.    "