Talk:Mark Kern

Credit for WoW Classic?

The "Nostalrius Petition & Classic World of Warcraft" section is strange. The only attribution is a video of Mark Kern himself. I do not this is enough to give the man credit for the creation of World of Warcraft Classic, as this section does. 24.144.254.102 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this article has clearly been defaced by either Kern or his fans. Attributing Classic WoW to him, removing mention of the FireFall party bus, no mention of his vaporware games since, etc. Wolfsung (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Some interesting history in this chat with David Jeffe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otDDf0rZOUg Mika (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Here are two sources attributing him as the team lead: ShackNews and GameZone, both considered reliable sources per WP:VG/S. The latter also mentions his involvement with Classic WoW, alongside this source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

POV problem and unreliable source

Kern has criticized the influence of ESG standards and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives on video game developers. In March 2024, he questioned the "wokeness" of the narrative development and consultation studio Sweet Baby Inc., saying the "woke machine cannot continue in the way that it is now for AAA gaming".

This paragraph is a dishonest framing of an ongoing situation that is more reliably covered by other articles. Mark is in fact one of the loudest voices in the gamergate-style harassment campaign targeting employees of Sweet Baby Inc. 46.97.170.120 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wiki article and this Talk page is not to discuss the validity of Kern’s opinions. If you feel that the article mischaracterizes Kern’s opinions, that worthy of discussion here, otherwise please remove your editorial. CharaxS (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@CharaxS The IP's got a point about the wording, it should be more neutral and replaced with a reliable source. The one cited does feel a bit questionable.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The source has an embedded video from which it quotes from without adding editorial interpretation. I would recommend that the video be the direct source to address that concern.

In terms of neutrality of wording, I would assess it fairly captured the essence of Kern’s talking points. Thoughts? CharaxS (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That *may* work, but I would avoid a direct quote, or at least too much of one. Summarizing it in the way you would a reviewer's statement might be better. A citation of criticism of his stance may be good as a counterpoint too to help balance it out. Ultimately you want to avoid having it in a way that makes it sound like it's Wikipedia making the statement, does that make sense?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

For an example of what I mean, look at how Jim Carrey#Vaccine skepticism is written.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with CharaxS and support replacing the references if we can. Unfortunately, there really aren't any reliable sources that are discussing Kern, despite him being one of the "loudest voices" of the #GamerGate2 nothingburger. The only other source I found was Fox News, which is not-quite-deprecated, unless you want to use something like MobileSyrup, which is also of questionable reliability, but biased in the other direction. I'm open to different wording, framing, and sourcing, but don't think blanking is the appropriate action here. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest I don't particularly want to get too involved in this subject myself, but I will state the wording feels amiss. Emphasize these are perceived points, and add a counterpoint. The example above is probably going to be your best bet for a possible approach.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man That approach seems reasonable. I've revised the paragraph and attempted to address the concerns with the references available; hopefully it isn't too SYNTHy. Aside from maintaining the mentions of DEI, ESG, and Sweet Baby, I'm not invested in any particular outcome here. gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

To call it a "nothingburger" is quite an understatement considering that it's part of a much larger issue of online radicalization in gaming spaces, which is serious enough to warrant the involvement of multiple federal agencies.

Right now, Mark is busy running a targeted harassment campaign against one of Kotaku's journalists, who's has a major expose in the works. I would recommend waiting for it to come out. 46.97.170.120 (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

More like the Kotaku's journalists were the one targeting Steam's Sweet Baby Inc Detected curator group and urging everyone to report and ban the creator, Kabrutus. Of course it back fired horribly, and now you're resorting to playing the victim as your means of only escape. Don't worry though, everyone has the actual logs of what actually did happen. 2600:1012:B1A0:393C:C596:2A32:50B1:7733 (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright everyone - to be clear, this is a talk page to support the Wikipedia article, not a forum for reddit-style bantering. The last two comments shouldn't even be here.

I appreciate emotions are hot these days but plenty of other spaces to sound off.

Regards,

The Management CharaxS (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I already deleted the above comment once as per WP:DENY, and now it's back. The problem appears to be one or two users trying to be disruptive. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem appears that people are trying to set the record straight, not getting trapped in your virtuous nonsense about how only allowing one side to have the narrative, otherwise it would be a "banter". You can call it whatever you want, that is the factual evidence. 174.243.179.167 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

What is factual evidence that you think merits inclusion in the article? That Mark is, "running a targeted harassment campaign against one of Kotaku's journalists"? That said journalist neglected to mention in her article that a Sweet Baby employee initiated a harrassment campaign against a Steam Curator that made the situation viral?

You can say that I am spouting "virtuous nonsense" but the one thing this article definitely does not do is take sides.

If you believe an additional or amended paragraph is warranted to address it, feel free to propose something that addresses both points mentioned above and we can discuss it. All I am seeing is a couple of you just offering slanted, subjective takes. Cheers. CharaxS (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That Mark is, "running a targeted harassment campaign against one of Kotaku's journalists"?

That is in fact what reliable sources say.

That said journalist neglected to mention in her article that a Sweet Baby employee initiated a harrassment campaign against a Steam Curator that made the situation viral?

This on the other hand, is not. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not here to gatekeep you from contributing to the article. If you want to propose something here for feedback from a few of us first, you are welcome to do so. It’s up to you to write it. CharaxS (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The individual you're addressing was defending Mark Kern, not a pro-Kotaku editor. It was the Kotaku team that initiated the harassment campaign against Kabrutus on the Steam Curator group, spreading blatant lies about Mark Kern being the one who initiated the harassment campaign.

There are people attempting to twist their narratives or muddy the waters in order to create confusion and defend their own sides. However, the truth is that if Kotaku journalists hadn't attempted to cancel the Steam Curator group, GamerGate 2.0 wouldn't have even happened. 2600:1012:B13C:726C:F401:B432:7FDF:DE12 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

not sources information on website.

In the section MEK Entertainment and later work it is claimed, that source 11 would state the fact, that the project of MEK Entertainment would be dead. ErikWar19 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

https://massivelyop.com/2019/10/11/mark-kern-didnt-just-quit-wow-classic-he-accused-his-old-firefall-studio-of-corruption/ MEK Entertainment is not mentioned in the whole article.

I presume, that the statement of the article: Red 5 Studios, in any case, doesn’t actually appear to exist anymore. In 2016, The9 apparently laid off nearly everyone on the team. Firefall itself was sunsetted in 2017 after months of limbo.

was understood wrong. The9 dissolved the Red 5 studio. We don't have a RS for the shut-down of MEK Entertainment.

At the same time i want to point out, that the "claim" of Kotaku, to describe him as "fundamentally misinformed" would be an unnecessary claim. "Do not label people with contentious labels"(BLP) and just keep the "GamerGate-esque firestorm" part.

I will point out, that https://massivelyop.com/2019/10/11/mark-kern-didnt-just-quit-wow-classic-he-accused-his-old-firefall-studio-of-corruption/ doesn't sound like a typical RS with their tendencies for example to describe Gamergate with you-know-what in 2014 and using heavily citation from Reddit and twitter. Was it reliability tested in the past?

--ErikWar19 (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

tried to rewrite the section about Sweet baby, replacing the unnecessary quote with potential contentious labels to Kern or someone else, with the simple section title in Sweet baby article. ErikWar19 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)