When I saw some journalists and even game developers like @tha_rami support the hypothesis that the gaming press was in no way responsible for the infamous L&O:SVU episode -- they just "reported the truth", so "don't shoot the messenger" -- I started writing a Medium piece that would show how that's basically a lie.
I used the Newsweek data (that shows that 90-95% of GamerGate tagged tweets are not "negative"), the work of data scientist Chris von Csefalvay (who tried to see if GamerGate is a "hate group"), http://gamergatefactcheck.tumblr.com/ and other sources -- including the general report of online harassment from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/ -- but I stopped after a few hours of work and deleted the document.
I realized that if I could go from anti- to neutral in two weeks of actually looking into #GamerGate, then if after over half a year of GamerGate you're still claiming that it is "an organized harassment campaign to push women out of gaming" and agree with Ben Kuchera that "Gamergate weapons are always terror", then:
a) you are biased beyond repair;
b) you know the truth but will stick to the narrative for your own purpose.
In both cases, my work would be for naught.
Someone could say that the article could help to change the mind of those who are anti- but open to discussion, or curious neutrals. That is true: usually no single article convinces anyone to change their views, only a steady influx of data can do that (at least that's how I stopped being an anti-) -- but for that influx to happen, well, "single articles" are needed.
However, and that's the issue, all of the data I used in my article is already available and not that hard to find. Type in "gamergate statistics" in Google and voila. I had nothing new to offer.
But I can offer that advice instead. If you really have an open mind, or try to have one, just search for the hashtag every now and then, or go visit http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction. You might find out that while #GamerGate has its faults (like the vocal minority of thick-skulled ludo-fundamentalists) and, like basically every Internet community in the world, it has its trolls and idiots (just as it has some very smart people), as a whole it's most definitely not a "harassment group". It's just a group without leaders but with a few clear goals: ethical journalism and denying the monopole on gaming critique to cultural colonialists.
I see no issue with either.