The Guardian reports: "Wikipedia's arbitration committee, the highest user-run body on the site, has banned five editors from making corrections to articles about feminism, in an attempt to stop a long-running edit war over the entry on the 'Gamergate controversy'."
Like it or not, Wikipedia is considered an important source of information—personally I love Wikipedia, it isn't a trustworthy source on its own every time but it makes finding sources easier—and people trust it. What is written in Wikipedia will be considered "real" and "correct" the way people used to always believe the news.
What I'm saying is, it really will be about ethics in journalism.
The Guardian goes on:
The editors, who were all actively attempting to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant, were sanctioned by "arbcom" in its preliminary decision. While that may change as it is finalised, the body, known as Wikipedia's supreme court, rarely reverses its decisions.
The sanction bars the five editors from having anything to do with any articles covering Gamergate, but also from any other article about "gender or sexuality, broadly construed".
In comparison it appears that no established pro-gamergate accounts are being sanctioned.
We've talked about Wikipedia's problems with women before, so it's not as though this is coming out of nowhere. This is an issue compounding into something worse and it is going to effect the way people think about events like gamergate in the years to come.
Last thoughts from The Guardian:
The byzantine internal processes of Wikipedia are incomprehensible for many, but they serve to shape the content on the site, the seventh biggest on the internet. Its reportedly unpleasant internal culture and unwelcoming atmosphere for new editors has long been blamed for an overwhelmingly masculine make-up – just one in ten editors are thought to be female – which in turn contributes to which topics get featured on the site.
As the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia's systemic bias explains, "research suggests that the gender gap has a detrimental effect on content coverage: articles with particular interest to women tend to be shorter, even when controlling for variables that affect article length. Women typically perceive Wikipedia to be of lower quality than men do."