Recently I commented on The Conversation's article on the "vitriolic abuse of Anita Sarkeesian". See the article here:

https://theconversation.com/vitriolic-abuse-of-anita-sarkeesian-why-the-games-industry-needs-her-31826#comment_478307

My comment was as follows:

"This is an under-researched article.

To start, #gamergate was never about gender in gaming; it is about corruption in gaming journalism and Zoe Quinn's offering of sexual favours for positive reviews of her games. The author's summary of #gamergate ("revolving around the long-standing issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community") is eerily close to the description provided on Wikipedia ("concerning long-standing issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community"). At best this is poor journalism; at worst, it's plagiarism.

The author does not address the initial reasons behind the gaming community's dissatisfaction with Anita Sarkeesian, which stems from her collection of over $150,000 of donations in 2012 via her Kickstarter project and subsequent lack of communication with her backers and inability to produce anything until a year later. Many people who contributed felt that funds were being misused, the quality of the videos was not high enough, and their trust was broken."

The article is clearly heavily biased and seems to be written as though the author skimmed over the Wiki pages and drafted something up. There was nothing accusatory or incorrect in my comment and it was not inflammatory. The publication's tagline is "academic rigour, journalistic flair". Well the flair part might be right, the rigour, not so much. What do you all think?

Edit: just to add that The Conversation is an Australian online publication covering wide-ranging topics, not just gaming.