Can you point out any factual errors in the article, with sources that demonstrate the error?

> The pro-gamergate editors were completely shut out of that article eventually and the article doesn't even mention any perspectives from the other side

The "pro-gamergate" perspective is described in the very first sentence under "Purpose and goals":

    The most active Gamergate supporters or "Gamergaters" said that Gamergate was a movement for ethics in games journalism, for protecting the "gamer" identity, and for opposing "political correctness" in video games and that any harassment of women was done by others not affiliated with Gamergate.