Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This talk page is for discussing the reliability of sources for use in video game articles. If you are wondering if a video game source is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia, this is the place to ask.

When posting a new topic, please add a link to the topic on the Video Game Sources Checklist after the entry for the site. If an entry for the site does not exist, create one for it and include the link to the topic afterward. Also, begin each topic by adding {{subst:find video game sources| name...| URL...}} in order to provide other users with some easily accessible links to check up on the source.

Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
  Talk page archive talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk


Fake sources[edit]

This is the previous discussion.

I would like to request a statement from this WikiProject for the Sources guideline regarding JimmyBlackwing's essay, section "Fake it". The practice described in that section is not about obtaining digital copies of a source, but something that would lead to:


Magazine said that game was great.[fake1 1]

  1. ^ "Game[fake2 1]". Magazine (42[fake2 2]). 2014-10-23[fake2 2]. The game is great.[fake2 3] 
References of references (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

...What about it did you want to discuss...? Sergecross73 msg me 11:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The WikiProject's official statements on reliable sourcing are these: WP:VG/RS and WP:VG/MOS#Sources. WP:VG also relies on Wikipedia's WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:JUSTANESSAY.
    • With that said I don't speak for the WikiProject, but here's my take on the suggestion in the essay:
I've collapsed it above to avoid tl;dr syndrome. -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
In your WSJ example, I think the expectation is to include both the Washington Post and the WSJ (per the example at WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). 84.127, the pages Thibbs cited are the closest you're going to get to an official statement. czar  14:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this IP user has taken a sudden interest in that section of my essay, but I'll say three things. First, like Thibbs pointed out, I describe this as an "underhanded method"—it's not a great practice. Second, it's impossible to detect "fake" citations if they're done right, which makes it similarly impossible to regulate them. Third, they're discussed in the context of absolute-last-resort options, and they aren't explicitly endorsed. Can they damage Wikipedia? Yes. Like Thibbs said, it's better to avoid them. But savvy (and desperate) editors have always used and will always use them, so they might as well be out in the open. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It's like how a number of liberals feel about legalizing abortion: it's not ideal, but it's preferable to the more dangerous alternative. In this case, that alternative might be leaving useful information out altogether, or attributing it to an unreliable source when you know with close to 100% certainty that it's indeed corroborated by the one you don't have access to. Tezero (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate the openness of this WikiProject. However, I am concerned about the comments I am reading. I suggest that the Sources guideline explain this temptation to use fake sources and strongly recommend to follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, without pointing to any "how to fake a source".
Of course, I may be wrong. If this WikiProject firmly believes that faking sources is an acceptable practice, I should seek advice elsewhere. (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This WikiProject's Sources guideline (located at WP:VG/RS) does not "point to any 'how to fake a source'". You're confusing a user essay for the Sources guideline. And the user essay in question clearly describes faking it as an "underhanded method [that] thoroughly violates some Wikipedia policy or other." So I can't imagine that anybody would confuse this for a WP:VG guideline/policy suggestion. -Thibbs (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) There's no easy answer. As I said above (but might not have been clear enough about), there are disadvantages to strictly enforcing SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT here: we could be missing out on useful information that's basically certain to be not only true but verified in the sources, and users interested in keeping the information anyway might resort to unreliable sources. Are those worth being dishonest about what sources you have access to? I would say yes, but then that's why we're having this discussion. It's worth noting, moreover, that even having access to sources doesn't guarantee perfection: you could be misinterpreting them, or you might have had access to them but lost it (e.g. renting a book from the library). Tezero (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well it may be a good idea to link "citing sources" from the second sentence of the WP:VG/RS lede to WP:CITE. Since WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is a subsection of WP:CITE, this should make it explicitly clear that WP:VG/RS follows Wikipedia guidelines in case anybody was unclear on that point. Any thoughts on this as a way to address's concerns? -Thibbs (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Oh, yeah, it's not our essay, so I agree that we shouldn't change it without asking. We shouldn't act as though it's without consequence, though; people do read it. Perhaps if a strong case emerges against "cheating" in this way, we could ask JB to consider changing it - though he still wouldn't be admonished otherwise. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This IP user is the first WPVG member to criticize the section, so I'm in no hurry to change it. I'd add that this all started when left a cryptic and vaguely menacing message on my talk page, in response to my question about his seriousness at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)—where he'd suggested the removal of notable reviews from the reception section. Then he took the essay issue here, for some reason. I can't tell whether he's confused or trying to cause trouble, but, either way, I think this thread can be put to bed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd assume it's just communications problems and the fact that this is a new user unfamiliar with Wikipedian culture. Nonetheless I think I'll link WP:VG/RS to WP:CITE as I suggested above unless anyone objects. It couldn't harm anything and hopefully it'll help. -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
YesY Done in this edit. -Thibbs (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Curiously seems to have been left with the impression that "this WikiProject firmly believes that faking sources is an acceptable practice" and has done as he suggested above and sought advice elsewhere. Specifically he has crossposted at WT:CITE where he claims (now writing as that from the above discussion "It looks like this practice is acceptable in some situations". Editors there are now talking about community bans and immediate indefinite blocks. Just a heads up. -Thibbs (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, I think it is both acceptable and widely accepted - because it's about faking access to the sources when you basically already have it, not coming up with fake sources as the IP implies. I've clarified that there, with an analogy to a similar practice that's widely done in scientific articles. Tezero (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Industry awards[edit]

I'm curious what others think about industry awards like BÄM! and the European Games Award. These and similar awards seem to be cited across the project, but the links often lead to an advertisement-heavy or extremely basic website or even just to a press release. In other words, there appears to be little traction among third-party sources about these awards—except through publishing their press releases—and I'm thinking about cutting them back if others agree.

I found out about this via User:Goodgame, "the official account of the press office of Goodgame Studios". (I warned the "editor" about our username and conflict of interest policies in October and they haven't edited since.) It turns out that Goodgame Studios won a European Games Award and is also the main sponsor of the award. In fact, much of that article is supported by primary/press release sources, but it's not just that article. It just makes me wonder how many of these are legitimate awards, and how many are just another form of advertising that we should remove. Woodroar (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your stance mirrors mine actually, I don't really find any of these endless generic awards important. I just wasn't sure if there was enough policy-based reason to remove them from articles... Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
In some or even most articles, I think WP:V and WP:UNDUE would apply, as industry awards are rarely covered by reliable sources. But it would be helpful if we included that in WPVG article guidelines. Currently, this reads "Magazine reviews, awards and quotes from game developers (except the developer's own advertising) can and should be used - those carry weight on their own", somewhat suggesting that awards are inherently important despite the fact that nobody cares about most of them. Woodroar (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Find video game sources: "Pak-GN"news · books · scholar · imagesVGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

So I saw this website while checking up on Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes and I'm not sure if the site is reliable or not. example. GamerPro64 03:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamesauce Pt. 2[edit]

Find video game sources: "Gamesauce" – news · books · scholar · imagesVGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

There was a thread about Gamesauce years ago with no real consensus on whether or not the magazine was reliable. Hopefully there can be one this time around. GamerPro64 20:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Source reliability homework[edit]

Find out if VentureBeat is reliable, find out if DailyTech is reliable, find out if Tech Times is reliable, find out if Touch Arcade and find out if The Wall Street Journal is reliable. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

VentureBeat and Touch Arcade are regularly used on the project. I'm pretty certain they're generally considered reliable. Wall Street Journal would also definitely be reliable. (Assuming its someone from their staff, and not some random user blog, if they allow for that sort of thing like Forbes does.) Keep in mind that we usually only document video game sources. So, while the New York Times is definitely reliable and usable, we don't include it since its not video game centric. That's probably why VB and WSJ aren't on there already. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)