Talk:Interactive fiction/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

never-updated sites

i removed brasslantern and xyzzynews as they havent been updated for years and re now horribly out-of-date —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.66.189 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Untrue. In fact, on the day you removed those links, it had been less than six days from the last update to both sites. Civil Again 08:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Xyzzynews's latest edition is January 2008. Seems to me it's not "horribly out-of-date"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinnisawest (talk • contribs) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ifarchive.org

its a bad idea to link to the achingly slow (unusably so) www.ifarchive.org website. much better to link to a random mirror via this link: http://mirror.ifarchive.org/indexes/if-archive.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.137.212 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use of Zork I screenshot

There is apparently some disagreement about the validity of a Zork I screenshot. Here's my reasoning for a fair use claim (also present in a comment in the article proper: The screenshot illustrates: 1. IF games in general. 2. One of the first IF games. 3. One of the most famous IF games. 4. One of the most influential IF games. It is so important to the history of IF, that this is clearly more fair use than, say, the many images in First-person shooter or the stills in Western movie. It is perfectly reasonable fair use to take an important work within a medium and show a small snippit (and this is a very small snippet of the game) of a particularly famous work as illustrative of the medium as a whole. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I think this particular image really helps illustrate IF for people who may have only had a brush with it in the past, so they can say "yes, that is what I was thinking of" -Rebent 02:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm ... but wouldn't you get all of that from a screenshot of a game in the public domain e.g. Don and Woods' original Colossal Cave Adventure (computer game) or Dungeon, the more-or-less public domain precursor to Zork? Not sure what the reasoning is for using a commercial alternative.--Samwiseuk (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of Colossal Cave being public domain. The copyright doesn't appear to have been enforced, but the copyright still exists unless the authors explicitly released it into the public domain. Were we to have evidence that Colossal Cave was public domain, that would be an interesting argument. Zork did have a much wider exposure, and seems likely more influential, but I might be convinced. As for Dungeon, it's definately not in the public domain. From the article itself, "Infocom agreed that if an Infocom copyright notice was put on the Fortran version, noncommercial distribution would be allowed..." A noncommercial limitation is not acceptable for Wikipedia; we'd need to use it under a fair use claim. If we're claiming fair use, why not go with the more widely recognized image? (Do note that Zork being commercial is completely irrelevant. What matters is copyright, and noncommercial works are protected equally well.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Textfyre

I've pulled the addition of Textfyre information for now; they haven't shipped anything, no articles have really been written about them, we have no idea if they're really notable. They may, sadly, go under without shipping anything. When they ship something and get some coverage, feel free to re-add them. Be sure to give them their own article and use the media coverage as citations to establish notability and avoid the gaze of editors more interested in deleting than creating. Note that while a company founded online may have lots of of valuable information on Usenet or on Blogs, the stricter editors frown on such things. You can sneak some such citations in (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), but if that's all you've got, you're destined for deletion. Fortunately the founding of an IF company is a rare enough event that I expect you'll get at least some minimal coverage. Note that under no circumstances a link to Textfyre's home page appropriate here. It would belong on Textfyre when that article exists. In the meanwhile, here's a place to start collecting citations. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I never really got the "no advertising" rule until just recently, but getting a slew of stuff deleted was fun. I guess in a way that's what I was doing, but seeing Malinche's link here irritates me. But it's fair that we haven't released a game yet. We will soon enough and the entries will take care of themselves. Textfyre is real, has over a dozen people working for the company, and is inching closer to launch. - --David Cornelson (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Cornelson, David (2007-09-17). "Q&A: Textfyre's Cornelson On An IF Resurgence". Retrieved 2007-09-17. - In which Alistair Wallis, writer for Gamasutra interviews David Cornelson about the start-up interactive fiction publishing company, Textfyre.
  • Gentry, Mike (2007-05-27). "happy memorial day weekend". No More Lemonade. Retrieved 2007-07-06. - In which Anchorhead author Michael S. Gentry mentions he's being paid to work on a commercial game. This is weak confirmation of the David Cornelson announcement below.
  • David Cornelson (2007-04-09). "Textfyre - April Update". Newsgroup: rec.arts.int-fiction. 1176145235.861015.232590@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com. Retrieved 2007-07-06. - Textfyre, Inc. incorporated on March 8 2007. The employees are David Cornelson and his wife. The contractors are Michael S. Gentry (authoring the first three games) and Erika Richardson (doing art for the first game). The first three games are going to be The Chronicles of Toresal: Episode I - Orphan, The Chronicles of Toresal: Episode II - Princess, The Chronicles of Toresal: Episode III - Queen. Jeff Panici is doing technical aspects, including working on the "VM" (presumably the interpreter). Orphan is scheduled for July or August 2007. The games will be rated by the ESRB and carry certification logos for Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Mac OS X. They're working with DePaul University on a business plan.
  • David Cornelson (2007-06-24). "Textfyre Announcement". Newsgroup: rec.arts.int-fiction. 1182705542.198338.299810@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com. Retrieved 2007-07-06. Original game and world was designed by David Cornelson. (Presumably this is the Chronicles of Toresal.) A second world and three games in that world are being designed by Ian Finley. The first game in that world will be written by Jon Ingold.
  • Cornelson, David (2004-09-28). "Build a Business for Interactive Fiction". The Society for the Promotion of Adventure Games #38. Retrieved 2007-07-06. - Article by Cornelson suggesting how to start a successful IF company.
  • Barton, Matt (2007-06-28). "History of Zork Now Available on Gamasutra: Read Full Interviews Here!". Armchair Arcade. Retrieved 2007-07-06. - David Cornelson was interviewed as part of the feature and discusses TextFyre
  • David Cornelson (2006-06-05). "Textfyre June Update". Newsgroup: rec.arts.int-fiction. 1181082527.815268.65320@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com. Retrieved 2007-07-06. - Programming on first game to start June or July 2007.
  • David Cornelson (2007-06-06). "Re: Textfyre June Update". Newsgroup: rec.arts.int-fiction. 1181104305.159602.239690@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com. Retrieved 2007-07-06. "New designs and prose will probably take up 2 to 3 months, programming 2 to 4 weeks, testing for a few weeks, then release. I expect each world will produce 3 to 4 games per year." "I expect this schedule to take place by the middle of next year or sooner."

Rendition?

In these edits, an anonymous editor added Rendition (game) to the notable games list. From the description it sounds notable. However, the two citations given don't appear to lead to a discussion of the game. Can someone track down more direct links or more accurate citations? — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

this quicktime movie contains the slides and the audio of the CU presentation: http://www.natematias.com/cam/trag-elit/Tragedy-Electronic-Lit-7-Examples.mov
this is a SWF of the slides: http://www.natematias.com/cam/trag-elit/TragPresentation.html#SlideFrame_26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.192.92 (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Rendition is a strange choice for inclusion in this list. It has seen some discussion, but so have other (and far more substantial) works not mentioned in this list. In the IF-community, Rendition has not made a big splash. Victor Gijsbers (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much any game notable enough to justify a non-stub Wikipedia article is probably notable enough to list here. If the article gets glutted with games, perhaps we should look to pruning to a smaller set, but I think we're good for now. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I might have my disagreements about some of the other choices, but I don't think anyone in the IF world would think "Rendition" is a notable game in the sense of the others listed. Dozens of IF games are discussed in university courses or in academic conferences and publications: that in itself is no indication of notability. Victor has modestly neglected to mention that one of his own games is also discussed in the link provided above; but unlike the self-promoting authors of "Rendition", he hasn't created a Wikipedia page about it and added it to the list of all-time notable games. I'm removing Rendition from the list until someone can come up with a much better reason for keeping it there. 193.190.253.149 (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested a clear standard of notability: notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. You have not suggested a clear standard, instead appealing to unsupported claims that "anyone in the IF world." Being discussed in an academic conference or publication is absolutely evidence of notability. If the academic world discussing the work isn't evidence, what could possibly meet your standard? However, the list here is moderately long, and we do need to keep it from growing out of control. We don't want to duplicate Category:Interactive fiction; that's simply not helpful. I'm not sure that Rendition is more notable than, say, most of Infocom's games, all of which also have articles. So I'll yield to the deletion of Rendition at this time. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. You've got to be kidding me if you're going to class Rendition with Anchorhead, Curses, Zork I, Enchanter, Adventure, Adventureland, and so forth. It is not notable in comparison. Rendition is more accurately described as a "one-trick pony" whose singular value consists of crude political commentary. Rendition is the Code Pink of IF. Silverstarseven (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

History of term "Interactive fiction"

A brief bit on the history of the phrase "interactive fiction" seems like a good addition. Here is what I've turned up so far as possible sources. (Many thanks to Peter Scheyen of [1] for his collection of articles].) — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Earliest usage: These are from reliable sources and are the earliest I can found. They establish legitimacy.
    • 1983, Time: "Computers: Putting Fiction on a Floppy" Time (magazine) December 5, 1983 By Philip Elmer-De Witt. Refers to "interactive fiction" several times. [2] [3]
    • 1983: New York Times: "Reading and Writing: Participatory Novels" The New York Times Book Review - May 8, 1983 By Edward Rothstein. "Infocom has been a major pioneer in such games, which have been called 'participatory novels,' 'interactive fiction' and 'participa-stories.'" [4] [5] [6]
  • 1984, New Zork Times: The New Zork Times (Infocom), Winter 1984 [7] First mention I can find of Infocom using the word. I can find later ones, but when Infocom publically first used it is most interesting.
  • 1985 Usenet discussions with the term, including several that overtly refer to Infocom's games as IF. This establishes general public use.
  • We continue to have mainstream, reliable usage:
    • 1985, Newsweek: "Zorked Again" by Bill Barol. Newsweek, December 23, 1985, page 70. [8] [9]
    • 1986, AmigaWorld: "The Wizard of Wishbringer" by Brian Moriarty. AmigaWorld, January/February 1986, pages 70-73. [10] [11]
    • 1988, Compute!: "Interactive Text In An Animated Age" COMPUTE!, Vol 10, No 1, Jan. 1988, Pages 17-19 By Keith Ferrell. [12] [13]
    • 1991, CGW: "The Rise and Fall of Infocom" by Johnny Wilson. Computer Gaming World, November 1991. [14] [15]
    • 1996, "Computer Game Review: Where Are They Now?" By Steven Greenlee (Computer Game Review, April 1996, pages 82-88) [16] [17]
    • 1999, PC Gamer: "Game Gods: Steve Meretzky." PC Gamer, September 1999, pages 80-81. [18] [19]
    • 2004, New York Times: The Ivy-Covered Console By Michael Erard, February 26, 2004, New York Times [20]
  • Places with more links to check on
I would just like to voice my endorsement of this proposed new subsection. I think the idea would serve the dual purposes of establishing legitimacy of the term as well as providing an interesting timeline to the genre. I also suggest that a pre-history be added where the genre was referred to strictly by the term "text-adventure" as this would advance the timeline goal of the subsection. Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Classicfilm's edits; electronic literature

I've reverted these three edits by Classicfilm. The general gist of the edits was to include electronic literature in the definition. This seems well intentioned, but overly broad. Hypertext fiction has a reasonable claim as being a sort of interactive fiction, but electroic literature doesn't. According the article, EL does include HF, but it also includes, "Novels that take the form of emails, SMS messages, or blogs" and other forms which aren't interactive (beyond the level you interact with, say, a book, by looking at it/reading it). This just muddies the definition of IF in a way that I don't believe to be supported by actual usage. There was also other oddness, including limiting the definition of video game IF to commercial works; I see no reason to do so. So, I reverted it. I'm certainly open to arguments that I've made the wrong call. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

New sourced claims about ZIL

Does High Score really claim that "Zork Interpretive Language" [sic] was Infocom's parser? If so, I'm not sure I'd call it a reliable source. ZIL stands for Zork Implementation Language; it's the Lisp-like programming language Infocom's games were written in. I can't speak to the claims about Inglish, but if it got ZIL so far wrong... Ntsimp (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Slouching Towards Bedlam statistics

I'm not sure that anything in WP:RS mandates the removal of this information. Is the suggestion that ifcomp.org is not a RS? I disagree. WP:RS states that "[T]he[] authors [of Reliable Sources] are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (italics in the original). Within the small community of IF-players this in fact is a fairly reliable source... Is there a better rationale for this edit? -Thibbs (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that all of the anonymous edits are the same person; it seems more plausible than that three or so strangers simultaneously decided to almost exclusively focus on this. Dearest anonymous editor, would you be so kind as to get a user account? It will make it much easier for everyone involved so we can do things like leave notes on your talk page, and generally address you.
As for the reasons to delete the claims; they are varied, shifting, and occasionally contradictory. [21] [22] [23] [24]. Fundamentally, the claims are good additions to the various interactive fiction articles. The IF Comp is a neutral, third party with a vested interest in getting honest results. Year-to-year results aren't perfectly calibrated to each, but like competition figure skating, it's good enough. That someone who once held the record has since lost it to someone who scored better is irrelevant, or shall we stop mentioning Babe Ruth's home run record just because Hank Aaron later beat it? — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here are the relevant anonymous editors:

As is probably obvious, I've linked a few other articles that had similar deletions. Floatpoint and Slouching Towards Bedlam both had IFComp scores deleted. Anchorhead (video game) had the IF ratings rating deleted. The IF ratings site isn't as strong of a reference as the Comp, but it does exist, and while the MOS:FILM doesn't like such things, there doesn't appear to be a guideline against it for video games. (And the guideline in question is probably intended to limit every single movie mentioning their rating. I suspect that a truly noteworthy score, like a movie that held the top spot for several years, would warrant the ignoring the guideline to include a mention.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

if a game wins the ifcomp or a xyzzy award, it is valid to note that. the particular average score it receives is irrelevant, just as MOS:FILM prohibits imdb scores, as it constitutes synthesis of user-generated data (WP:SYNTH). Do not include user ratings submitted to websites, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. as there is no fixed caucus of voters, nor of rating schemes to be used, any statistical synthesis is irrelevant.

while making your favorite games seem more important than they are by artificially synthesizing achievements for it (eg "the highest rated game excluding games with more than twenty votes and less than seventeen votes between 1996 and 1997 written in Inform with a file size of more than 200Kb" etc) please remember this is an encyclopedia about facts, not your personal opinion (WP:OR). sadly freeware amateur videogames, IF or not, lack the body of reliable 3rd party sources to draw upon that commercial releases might have, nevertheless wikipedia's standards for reliability are not thrown out: rather, they are maintained, and even text adventures must follow the same high standards of sourcing as every other article. i advise that you familiarise yourself with wikipolicy (WP:POL) before making further unfounded statements in talk pages and edit summaries.

regarding ifratings.com and other user-generated content sites, see WP:VG/S: "Many sites allow users to submit content, like Wikipedia itself. These reviews are often not independent, and are not reliable because they have not been checked for factuality by an editor.". WP:RS is inviolable, not a reason to apply WP:IAR. any further edit-warring will result in 3rd-party arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.52.50 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that WP:RS and WP:OR have been improperly conflated. Synthesis is a policy violation and WP:RS is merely a guideline. As such it is incorrect to suggest that WP:RS is inviolable. In fact WP:RS is violable under either IAR or UCS. This conflation clouds the argument for remedial deletion to address a purported synthesis. Let's be quite clear. The argument here is that the edit fails WP:OR.
I have not checked the sources and at this point I make no assessment of this charge. Regardless, it is pertinent at this juncture to remind all users that the WP:AGF and WP:SIGN guidelines are still "generally accepted standards that editors should attempt to follow," and that WP:DG suggests that the use of untagged alternate accounts is a violation of WP:SOCK - an issue of wikipolicy. I'm not extremely concerned about these violations as they relate to the topic of discussion, but in light of the fact that this is the first attempt at the "D" portion of the BRD-cycle, it's probably safest to judge not... -Thibbs (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:UCS is "Use common sense" and WP:BRD is "Be bold, revert discuss," for people who don't know what they stand for (like me as of a few minutes ago). — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your desire to be anonymous; there are any number of reasons you might wish to remain so. However, a user account doesn't reveal who you are. You don't need to give an email address, and you don't need to use your real name. Indeed, with a user account most people can't tell what your IP address is, so you actually become slightly harder to identify. The only "advantage" of using IP addresses, especially ones that change frequently, is that it is harder for people to review your edits as a whole. Be proud of your work and get an account!
We're using the average score because it is the standard used for ranking the competition. It is as appropriate to list as scores in competitive figure skating. For the IFComp ratings, the results are hardly artificially synthesized. Floatpoint does currently have the record for highest average score. Slouching used to hold that record. The IF Rating for Anchorhead was only limited in a single way: to exclued a game that had a single vote. I think that's a reasonable exception and the exception was clearly called out in the article. The claims in question were cited and easily checked by anyone who can browse the web, so this is hardly original research. WP:SYNTH is clearly irrelevant, as these aren't multiple sources.
As Thibbs notes, be careful when you swing around words like inviolable for guidelines clearly marked as "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. And do take care that [you don't step over] the WP:3RR 3 revert rule policy. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, as User:Alan De Smet suggests, a pseudonymous account is generally recommended for anonymous editing. See WP:IP edits are not anonymous and WP:DG. In fact, WP:SOCK#Wikipedia:Alternative account notification recommends that editors inform ArbCom about untagged Alt. Account use. I believe the IP editor here in discussion means well and I have not reported this to ArbCom nor do I suggest that anybody here take such an action. As my point earlier may be misconstrued, I will clarify that the aggressive tone and selective throwing-about of policy is bound to ruffle editors with whom an anonymous editor has a disagreement and as such it should be avoided lest the indirectly invited scrutiny reveal policy violations in the apparently policy-knowledgeable IP editor. -Thibbs (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


A note about reliable sources

user-generated content, such as reviews and ratings of games by the general public on sites such as youtube etc is not considered a reliable source. info from such sites should not be cited on wikipedia. such sites are considered self-published sources as they have the potential to be "gamed", and the relevant authors are not domain-experts. this includes sites such as: IFDB, IFRatings, IFReviews.org, Mobygames user reviews, IMDB user reviews, Wikipedia, IFWiki etc. random blogs in which individuals may review the odd IF game also fall into this category. i have just removed several additions by user User:Thibbs that violate this policy. please ensure citations are always to reliable 3rd-part sources. thanks!

(btw, beware of wikpedia pagescrapers - they simply republish wikipedia content. nationmaster is one such scraper). 82.20.32.232 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not necessarily disagreeing that NationMaster is a scraper site, but do you have anything you are basing that on? I notice the wikipedia article on NationMaster calls it a scraper in an un-cited sentence, but as you pointed out wikipedia articles are hardly reliable third party authorities. I'm content with the removal of the sources that I supplied provided that they were reverted in good faith. I'm sure you're aware that POINT edits are frowned upon since you seem to have passing familiarity with wikipolicy so I won't caution you about that. I'd also like to commend your attention to detail in this article. I agree with a lot of your tags concerning needed citations. Out of curiosity, have you considered searching for any of these citations yourself? I was able to find a number of them (beside the ones you disagree with) within moments simply by running a google-based search. Also, have you considered User:Alan De Smet's suggestion above concerning creating a pseudonymous account? I hadn't noticed your problems ([25], [26], etc.) following WP:3RR before, but this may be a good way for you to preserve your anonymity while avoiding IP prejudice. At the very least, it would perhaps provide a more useful place for editor-to-editor discussions to take place rather than the nebulous cloud of IPs we currently have. Anyway, please take both suggestion in consideration. You have potential to be a real asset to this article. -Thibbs (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Really, anonymous, is your time here on Wikipedia best spent deleting cited claims and arguing about proper interpretation of guidelines? There is nothing more productive you might be doing? A reader of the articles in question can trivially check the citations and decide on how meaningful it is. The IFComp scores are the basis for the competition. They have active incentive to reduce gaming of the system. IFRatings may be a flawed site, but being at the top of the list is noteworthy. The only guideline argument you have is that MOS:FILM, an unrelated guideline, has decided that similar ratings are inappropriate. And, I'm pretty confident that if a movie dominated, say, the IMDB ratings that it would be worth a reasonable exception to note it, courtesy of IAR and UCS. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Really, wikipedia *is* "user-generated content". It's not a "reliable 3rd-part source" either. Several users go and give high ratings for a game in a community site such as ifreviews.org and their opinions as people who actually played the game don't count because it's not "reliable"?! Gimme a break! I prefer basing my assumptions about a game I've not played yet based on such statistical feedback (and metacritics) rather than the opinion of a single paid analyst on mainstream magazines. So much BS going on in wikipedia... 189.11.192.130 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I have searched for second party sources that cover this competition and can find none so, unless someone has any, then we should conclude it is not a notable competition. It should only be included if we can get the results from a relaible second party source. Self published info and user generated content are rarely acceptable. User 82.20.32.232 is correct that these sites should not be used as sources. --neon white talk 13:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about ifcomp.org? If so, would any of these count?
ifarchive source, 1up source, AllTheRage source, University of Pennsylvania source, eliterature.org source
This just scratches the surface for ifcomp.org... -Thibbs (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not too hard to show the competitions notability. It gets several pages of coverage in the book Twisty Little Passages. And while there isn't quite the depth of coverage of, say, the Oscars, you get a fair amount of third-party coverage of new competitions opening or final results.For example, you have Hackszine published by O'Reilly Media, Destructoid published by ModernMethod, Slashdot (article) published by SourceForge, Inc., Joystiq (article) published by Weblogs, Inc., mediabistro published by Jupitermedia, or GameSetWatch published by Think Services. Sure, many of those are technically "blogs", but they're also published by corporations with a vested interested in not embarrassing themselves. Apparently a fair number of third-parties (third-party to the competition) think the competition is worth at least mentioning. Now, it is not necessary to pull actual competition numbers from third-party sites, any more than you would need to go to a third-party for Oscars results. All the third-parties are going to do is reprint the information from the competition itself. — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't want to forget The Wall Street Journal. — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
On the up side, we're helping build a collection of citations for the competition's article. :-) — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, I'm not aware of the need for a source to itself pass WP:N to be counted as WP:RS. The RS guideline suggests, "reliable, third-party, [and] published" are the key tests. It's certainly published. (WP:RS doesn't appear to define this; I'm assuming it means, "Potentially available to the public so other people can review it.") It's third-party for the articles in question (but would not be for Interactive Fiction Competition, but that's not what is under discussion), and it's reliable in that it is "trustworthy [and] authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (from WP:RS again). — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Further, it should be emphasized that WP:V#Reliable sources states that "[a]rticles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources..." As such, secondary sources aren't really the issue here. -Thibbs (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The book is one source, WSJ, because it's a blog is of less use, none of the others are really verifiable sources, i'd be looking for something in magazines, jorunals, newspapers etc. as a good source. Other equally non-notable sites are of no use. This issue is not about notablity but whether the competition is important enough to warrant inclusion. If you can't source the results to a reliable second party, i'd say it probably shouldn't be included. see WP:SPS. If it was uncontroversial it might have been ok but seen as it has been contentious, we should be careful about using self published sources. As has been stated user generated content can never be used as a source, this includes 'fanzines' like the one at [27], however citing the results of the competition from their own website might be acceptable if all parties agree. If you can cite second parties then those are the sources to cite. Reliable second and third party sources are what are usually used, they are established at WP:PSTS.--neon white talk 21:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:PSTS says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." I don't think there is any doubt that the passages in question agree with the primary source and can be verified by anyone reading the primary source. I think Thibbs and I have shown that the IFComp is a reliable, third party, published source, meeting the core of WP:RS and more importantly that the awards are relevant and meaningful. Common sense suggests that the competition's own site is an ideal source for citations about winners, as anyone else is simply reprinting what the competition claims themselves. (And Wikipedia:SPS#cite_note-4 suggests that the WSJ blog is suitable for inclusion. And while note 4 specifically refers to "newpapers", as sites like Slashdot or Joystiq are "subject to the newspaper's[publishers] full editorial control," I believe common sense suggests they are appropriate as well.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It's the 'reprinting' of results in reliable sources that makes them verifiable. The official site should be fine especially if they issue a press release. News blogs are sometimes but not always acceptable and, as with all opinion pieces, should be used carefully, attributing the opinions to the author when necessary. IFComp is not a reliable, third party, published source, it's a first party source if you are quoting it directly. A third party would be another site discussing IFComp.--neon white talk 18:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Well everyone agrees that the book, Twisty Little Passages clearly demonstrates the notability of IFComp. Another book from a lecture series by the obviously qualified Ana Paiva (which unfortunately is not available online) can be found described here and discusses the IFComp. A doctoral thesis by 2004 National Thesis Award participant, Mariëlle Gebben, discussing the IFComp can be found here in Dutch. I would argue that the Wall Street Journal article would also count as a reliable source (despite the fact that its online version allows public commentary). As Alan De Smet points out, the footnote to SPS clearly demonstrates the weight accorded this sort of "blog." Although they may not be 3rd party, 1up.com (publishers of EGM magazine), GameSetWatch, and Joystiq.com are all well-respected sources for video games generally and the IFArchive and SPAG are well-respected source for IF titles specifically. As I mentioned earlier, WP:RS states that "[T]he[] authors [of Reliable Sources] are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". To me this indicates that these sources have sufficiently demonstrated the notability of IFComp in the matter at hand and that in deference to IFComp as an authority in relation to the subject at hand, these other sources have proven the reliability of IFComp as a source.
Treating that much as established, it would seem to be fully acceptable to cite IFComp as a reliable source. Despite this it is here suggested that IFComp is not a reliable source itself but rather a self-published primary source, however even regardless this would not be a problem as I see it. A re-examination of the manner in which it has been used here demonstrates that it is being used to report on its own rankings. As WP:SELFPUB explains, "[s]elf-published ... sources may be used as sources of material about themselves, including in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." As WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources explains, "Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction)." Doesn't this indicate that the IFComp scores are citation-worthy at least in this context? -Thibbs (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion on "first/third party" and "primary/tertiary sources." They are different things with different standards. WP:RS muddies things linking from "third-party" to the obviously unrelated definition of primary/tertiary. WP:RS says we should use third-party sources. WP:RS does not define third-party. It does link to this section of WP:NOR, which defined primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. More tellingly, WP:NOR says, "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources...." So which is it, secondary sources or third-party sources? If we assume that "third-party" and "tertiary source" have the same definition, we simply cannot resolve this. However, if "third-party" means, "Not the subject of the article," this works fine.
If that's the case, and I believe that it is, the IFComp is third-party to individual games, in much the same way that Roger Ebert is third-party to individual movies. Now, the IFComp is a primary source. But WP:NOR says that primary sources may be used, with care. It even helpfully describes what sort of care is needed, "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source...." I believe the IFComp claims in question meet this standard. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This sounds correct to me. The only thing I would add is that there is a perfect difinition of "third-party" at wikt (see "third party"), a sister project to wikipedia. As Alan De Smet suggests, there is no requirement that sources be tertiary to be reliable. I think it is clear that IFComp is perfectly fine as a third-party source on the topic at hand and that even if it is considered a self-published first-party source as it is used to report on its own rankings, it is nevertheless acceptable under WP:SELFPUB and WP:PSTS. I can see the potential for an argument that a secondary-source is required to combat WP:SYNTH, however this is a matter of deductive summary accomplished without changing the meaning of the source or advancing a position contrary to the source. WP:SYNTH characterizes this sort thing as "good editing." To further expand on this, a cursory examination of Jimbo Wales' brief comment on synthesis ought to assuage any fears that deductive reasoning vititates the reliability of the information reported. As concisely as possible, WP:SYNTH is intended to block "synthesi[s] work [employed] in a non-standard way," but it is clear that a total bar of synthesis would prevent summary and directly conflict with WP:UCS (see WP:OR, FN1 and WP:NOTOR).
Would either the anonymous IP Editor or User:Neon white care to comment? -Thibbs (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Neon white on his talk page to rejoin the conversation. Also, I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere, so in hopes of getting more viewpoints, I've asked at WP:RS/N. I haven't bothered trying to contact the anonymous editor; he never appears to use the same address more than once. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

ifcomp.org is a sufficiently reliable source for past results. Whether to mention those results here depends on IFC's importance within interactive fiction. Are there other, more notable, awards in the genre? --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
the XYZZY Award for Best Game is a more notable and significant award, since it covers *all* games released in a given year, not just the handful entered in the IFComp. IFComp is not decided by a panel of experts, but by anonymous public votes (liable to vote-stuffing), so is far from the "oscars of IF" that user "Alan De Smet" misleadingly claims. its 's already a stretch to include ifcomp as a signifier of notability. as per neon white, including unverified user-ratings averages (and manipulating them to suggest one years IFComp winner is better than another because it has a "higher average") is certainly out. 82.9.26.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC).
User:82.9.26.153 is correct to the extent that there is no third-party support for the suggestion that IFComp is the "oscars of IF". The comparison I believe User:Alan De Smet meant to make was to the Super Bowl. As Vauhini Vara of The Wall Street Journal notes in her article, Keeping a Genre Alive, "The [annual Interactive Fiction Competition] contest, going on now and in its 11th year, serves as a sort of Super Bowl of the genre."
The Super Bowl is arguably one of the most notable annual sports events and as the IFComp has been given this sort of recognition from an obviously qualified Wall Stree Journal writer, it seems to me that the unsourced synthetic observation by Alan de Smet that the IFComp is also similar to the Oscars does little to damage its objective notability. Further, I've seen little to indicate manipulation of the statistics. As I understood it, the question was whether IFComp could be used as a source absent conflicting sources. Are there conflicting sources at XYZZY? Suggesting that Alan De Smet has selected IFComp in order to further his own opinion that the game is question deserves a higher average is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Do you have anything to base this on? -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The IFComp is a reliable source for information about the competition itself. Other sources have decided that the competition is notable. That another competition is "more notable" or "more significant" for whatever standard you care to select is irrelevant. That the numbers come from public votes is irrelevant. The competition has decided that those numbers are meaningful, as they are the entire basis for the final ranking. We don't need to judge the quality of the numbers; the competition already has. We can report the competition's decisions. If there is criticism of the competition's scoring system (That is, beyond your personal opinion), I am absolutely in favor of including it in Interactive Fiction Competition; we would be remiss to omit it. But that criticism is not grounds to remove these cited claims from a reliable source.
Floatpoint did rank first place in the 2006 Interactive Fiction Competition[28], it did so with an average score of 8.41[29], and that score is the highest scoring game game from 1999 through 20087.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Are you claiming that IFComp site does not support these claims? Are you claiming that the IFComp site is not a reliable source for information about the rankings they themselves issued? — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of my claiming that the IFComp is the Oscars of IF, please re-read what I wrote again. I said that the IFComp is like the Oscars for purposes of my argument, in that both are the authoritative and reliable sources for information about their respective results. I grabbed the Oscars because it happened to spring to mind. If it helps, pretend I compared it to the Daytime Emmy Awards; my resulting claim remains identically accurate. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This is so frakking insane it's hilarious. How big is the IF community? Does this neon guy really thinks IF will get coverage on the New York Times?! It's still a notable subject to appear on wikipedia, but unfortunately nothing new on the front can be included because it's not notable and it's not notable because the community of authors/players is too small. Is that funny or not? It's pretty notable, though, in this is small community! It shines like the sun! 189.11.192.130 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the best way to go here is to use the sources to improve the Interactive Fiction Competition article were they would be acceptable and wikilink to it here maybe with a brief summary. No point in repeating info here that can go in that article. --neon white talk 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Improving Interactive Fiction Competition is certainly a good idea, but it seems orthogonal to the issue here. This is about claims regarding two games, Floatpoint and Slouching Toward Bedlam, and citations for those claims should appear where the claims are used: this article and the games articles themselves, before the anonymous editor deleted them. I don't understand what you're proposing. Could you please clarify? — Alan De Smet | Talk 20:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminate information?

Our dear anonymous friend is back. Apparently he's given up on his previous arguments (including WP:RS, WP:OR, MOS:FILM(?!), WP:VG/S, and WP:SPS), but is still looking for any guideline that might justify his deletions. Today's theory is "so what? irrelevant trivia. pick 2 random years and claim its the 'highest score' between them? WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information". Well, let's check what WP:NOT sayins about indiscriminate collections of information. No general statements, only a list of things Wikipedia is not. The only entry that even marginally applies is "Statistics," but that is clairified as "Long and sprawling lists of statistics". One number does not a long and sprawling list make. The two years were not randomly selected; they represent the earliest year I can find data for and the year in which another game received a higher average score. And since he brings up "trivia", let's take a quick look at WP:TRIVIA, if only to save us yet another revert round trip: WP:TRIVIA regards lists of isolated facts, and the recommended treatment is integration into the article. The facts in question were integrated into the paragraph about the game's reception and don't qualify as a Trivia section. — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Floatpoint statistics

I copied 86.25.206.218's post below from Talk:Floatpoint in order to keep the dicussion in one place. — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

the correct place for the statistical miracle that User:Alan De Smet has discovered (that floatpoint received a high average rating in a user-voted competition, despite it not being the highest, and despite the fact that figures are not available for many years of the comp) is his own blog and/or webspace, or perhaps ifwiki. Not a wikipedia article, which reports encyclopedically on what others have said about the subject in question. Surely such an amazing statistical fact, will be reported far and wide, right? why else would mr de smet be so keen on including this trivia? let's take a look at the game very own promotional page: http://emshort.wordpress.com/my-work/ - how odd! doesnt seem to mention this statistical miracle, which is so important it merits several sentences in the intro! surely the games very own promotional page would mention this? in fact, i couldn find a single discussion of this statistical miracle anywhere at all. why is that?

"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (WP:NPOV) in this case, the appropriate weight for this statistical miracle is nil, until sources can be found that discuss it. even the ifcomp pages themselves don't discuss it. strangely, they don't even put a ranking of all the ifcomp games together into a "greatest of all time" list. why is that? could it be even ifcomp doesn't deem such comparisons relevant or noteworthy?

is there any particular reason this particular editor is so keen to promote this irrelevant trivia on the wikipedia page? would he care to share why he deems this largely-ignored statistical miracle so important to the wikipedia page, when it has nobody else other than mr de smet raving about it? until then, it shall be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.206.218 (talk • contribs)

The "statistical miracle" is not some carefully manufactured number. I have not cherry picked dates. The data goes as far back as I can find citations for, and goes forward to the date in which another game received a higher average score. I have not cherry picked statistics, the average score is how games are ranked, it is the only statistic directly used by the competition. This is similar to reporting "the coldest day since 18xx, the earliest year data is available" or "So-and-so hit the most home runs in one season since records were kept until that record was beaten by That-other-guy."
The meat of your newest argument appears to be that undue weight is placed on the information. How so? You quoted a bit chunk of the NPOV guideline. Is it placed too prominently? I'm open to moving it. I'm guessing you mean "depth of detail, quantity of text". I don't think three sentences noting the score, the score in context, and the game that had a higher score is undue quantity of text. Perhaps it drowns out the XYZZY score a bit, in which case we can discuss placement. Or, even better, I'd love some more context on the XYZZY score.
What am I "keen" on? What exactly are you insinuating? What I'm keen on is making Wikipedia a better place. Not in grand ways, just one small improvement at a time. I believe the addition is good. It's cited, reliable, verifiable, and provides some context. Its removal makes Wikipedia ever so slightly worse. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
A quick reminder: you can sign your posts with "~~~~". Doing so is encouraged. Also, I know it's been mentioned before, but if you haven't already, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Why create an account?. An account actually gives you a bit more privacy, as your IP address is hidden from almost the general public (including most editors), and can be a pseudonym. It also makes it a lot easier for people to address you in conversations (my selfish reason for wanting you to have one), and provides other benefits. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Before we go any further, I believe WP:SARC is directly on point here (especially the bit about the IP editing). That's not binding of course but WP:POINT is, and based on nothing more than what I see here it appears that the IP editor has made the proverbial mountain out of what he seems to consider a trivial molehill. This is not a battleground and the point of editing is not to win. If this can help at all for reasons of consensus, I would come down in favor of keeping the information. The information is quite clearly deductively achieved and thus WP:SYNTH doesn't apply. The source does not fail WP:RS (as we discussed in depth above), and although there is a weak argument that it is trivial in nature, I personally find the information to be worthy of at least minor note. As far as the current manifestation of this dispute, based on the course this whole matter has taken, I believe that this WP:TRIVIA-related concern is less likely a concern for wikipedia's style than it is an example of moving the goalpost due to the development of some kind of barely concealed enmity. -Thibbs (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interactive_fiction/Archive_2&oldid=399880525"