Talk:The Game

The Game (game)

If you are here about the mind game called "The Game", often characterized by the phrase, "You lose the game", please take the time to read and understand the following:

• About policies in general
  • Information on WP is required to meet certain standards.
  • Information which fails to meet even a single criterion is subject to deletion.
• Specific policies and guidelines
  • Notability - Something must be notable for it to be included
    • "Notability" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia
    • Popularity does not automatically qualify as notability
    • The mere mention of something in a reliable source does not automatically establish notability
  • No original research - Wikipedia accepts pre-established facts only
    • Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources or even tertiary source
    • Primary sources are generally not acceptable
    • If you personally go and find people actually playing "The Game", that is likely to be considered original research
  • Reliable sources are generally required
    • An open web discussion forum is not a reliable source
    • A Facebook group is not a reliable source
    • A blog is not a reliable source
    • A long list of non-reliable sources does not add up to a reliable source
    • A secondary source which appears to simply regurgitate a single non-reliable source is often considered questionable
  • Verifiability
    • Others must be able to independently verify all of the above
    • Specific citations of a reliable source will help verification
    • Unfortunately, we cannot just take anyone's word for it
• Also
  • The fact that other articles may have problems does not justify anything
  • For best results, know and honor talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette
• What you can do
  • Read and understand the various policies and guidelines linked above
  • Find multiple, reliable, tertiary sources which meet all criteria
  • Cite those sources extensively in your comments here
  • Avoid letting your emotions or personal preferences cloud your arguments

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of all the things listed above, the only issue previous articles of the Game had was with the definition of "Reliable Source" to which both sides of the discussion cherry picked what that means. Pro Gamers listed forum posts and blogs which are deemed unexceptable, which is flowing the wiki definition of an unreliable source to the word, but the website www.losethegame.com and the article in newspaper De Morgen are not an unreliable source according to wiki's definition. And, in a catch 22 situation for those who believe the Game is a hoax, then it sucessfully hoaxed De Morgen and equally deserves an article. Either way you argue it, the Game deserves an article: the only decision is whether the article is about "The Game" or "The Game Hoax".

Much like the above list says, a long list of unreliable sources and some reliable ones does not make them all unreliable. The Game exists, the reliable sources exist. If anyone denies that the Game fits wiki's requirements I want you to quote the wiki rule it fails and specifically how it fails it. --84.69.10.98 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you stop acting like you are pushing an agenda, or are somehow entitled to an article, you will get a much better response. What matters at Wikipedia is consensus and neutrality. Please try to understand that, and you will get much better results.

Second, your claims do fail the guidelines posted, in rather obvious ways. Please study the policies, guidelines, and articles linked, and take the time to understand what this is about, rather than responding emotionally.

Specifically:

• losethegame.com: That website was reportedly created with the explicit purpose of justifying a Wikipedia article. It would thus be disqualified as original research. Assuming that report is inaccurate, it would still be disqualified as a self-published source and as a primary source. Further, that site explicitly promotes vandalism of Wikipedia (see losethegame.com/strategies.htm#wikipedia). That alone makes it extremely dubious. So, no, that site is not anything remotely like a reliable source.

• "newspaper De Morgen": Nobody has provided anything like a citation for that. No publication info. No issue, date, or page. Not so much as a blip. So it cannot be verified.

Again, I spelled this out for you. Please provide proper citations of multiple reliable sources which are also tertiary sources and not original research. You keep insisting that "The Game" is notable, so this should be easy for you to do.

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't keep insisting anything. I've only posted once in this article before (as "the British Game player" in the archive). Anyway, I have your multiple citeable reliable tertiary sources. 3/19/07 Dail Nebraskan article and a photo of the De Morgen article. Therefore, either then Game is real and deserves an entry, or it is a successful hoax and still deserves an entry. Now exactly where does it fail the wiki rules? --84.69.10.98 (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry I confused you with some of the other anonymous posters in this discussion. You may want to consider typing in your name with the signature, or even creating a named account, to avoid such confusion in the future. • Thank you for posting those sources. That's a big step in the right direction. • Can you provide or find a translation of the foreign-language article? This is the English-language Wikipedia, so non-English sources are problematic. • In general, newspaper articles are not tertiary sources. They are typically secondary sources, or primary sources for opinion pages, editorials, and the like. • Finally, and again, the mere fact that something exists does not satisfy notability guidelines. • I do ask that that you please take the time to read and understand the pages I link to. It will save us both a lot of time. • So, while you have taken a step in the right direction, I believe you still have a ways to ago. My opinion alone doesn't count for much, of course -- Wikipedia works by consensus. But given past discussions, I really think that's the response you'll get from other editors as well. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I did consider making a named account but so far this is the only article I have any desire to edit/discuss and that is only because me and my friends at the University of Kent were needless to say a bit miffed that one of our most regular activities was accussed of being the work of fantasy by American schoolkids faking wiki articles. Losethegame.com hasn't helped the topic much by doing more harm than good and annoying people so much that the people in charge wouldn't believe the game existed if Bush shouted "I just lost the game!" live on tv. This means that The Game is given absolutely no leanway given its secretive and impulsive nature. As I said in my part in the archive, The Game should be given the same treatment as games such as tag (and the 50-something variations listed on wikipedia) . Now you wouldn't dream of saying that the tag article (or any other playground game with an article) should be removed because there isn't some official text cited for everything because you apreciate that its not the kind of thing . Another example is the happy slapping article: that is almost nothing but newspaper articles and blogs yet that is offically not good enough to acknowledge the existance of happy slapping on wikipedia.

Anyway, as requested, here is the translation to that newspaper:

The Game must be the simplest game in the world. It all comes down to: "the moment you think about it, you lose". Psychology for beginners: try very hard not to think about something and you will think about it.

A player who loses The Game by thinking about it is obliged to state out loud that he has lost. One version says that all other players in the vicinity lose as well, other versions give other players a short amount of time - ten minutes or half an hour, the rules are vague - to forget about The Game again. Whichever version is played, for the losers not all is lost: the moment that The Game is out of their head again, they are playing it once more.

In the US and UK The Game is, mainly in schools and university, a modest hype. In Brazil, Australia and Japan, more and more youngsters follow. Nearer to us, The Game is starting to appear as well - slowly at the moment, but unstoppable all the same. The first rule determines that whoever knows of The Game, is playing it - so there's no escaping it.

In the UK, fanatics have developed several strategies to make their fellow players lose. They write "The Game" in big letters on the chalkboard in front of the class, they hide little notes saying that the founder of the note has lost. The ultimate strategy is, of course, to remind the competition of The Game as often as possible, without being reminded of it yourself.

But every victory is short, for it is always temporary. Ultimate victory does not exist, The Game never ends. Even for expert players, it is not known what the origins of The Game are. On the internet, several websites are dedicated to finding those origins.

Those of you who were not paying close attention might have missed it, but there can be no misunderstanding about it: all those who have read this article, play The Game now, whether you like it or not. Sorry.

The Game is a social activity connected to student culture (and within the last couple of years online to internet forums) so its not the type of thing that gets research papers about it. That said, several years ago would people have claimed that internet jargon like 133t, smilies and "lol" didn't exist because any evidence of their existance could only be found on "unreliable sources"? And as I said before, for those who want to believe the game is a hoax then surely my previous sources must be reliable (what better source for the hoax than the hoax itself?) because such sources are acceptable in the April Fools' Day article.

Honestly I think the best thing to do would be to make an article that is balanced between "The Game" and "The Game hoax" to try and keep everyone happy. As I have showed, there is more to this than losethegame.com's pointless vandalism (and the equal vandalism of those that demand that the Game never gets recognition no matter what evidence is presented) and if we all started working on coming up with something balanced this issue will finally be resolved and everybody is happy. I'll just be happy if I can progress the discussion so both sides of the debate stop being brick walls to each other :) --84.69.10.98 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the translation, that's a very useful contribution, and something I expect will come in valuable. Is that your own work? If not, please note where you copied it from, so we can cite it if need-be. • As I have written, repeatedly, the fact that other articles on Wikipedia (tag, happy slapping, whatever) have problems is generally not considered an acceptable argument to get something else included. This is often called the "other stuff exists" argument. • I really do wish you would heed my advice, and take the time to read and understand the policies and guidelines I've linked to. You keep raising points they explicitly address. I grow tired of repeating myself. • Please understand that nobody is denying the existence of "The Game". The lack of a Wikipedia article does not mean something does not exist. I don't have a Wikipedia article on me, but I exist. The reason "The Game" has not gotten a Wikipedia article is that nobody can find sources which meet Wikipedia requirements. That's nothing to do with "The Game" itself; it just means it has received little treatment in the literature. Presumably that will change with time. If that's the case, you'll have to be patient. • In particular, I don't think "The Game" is a hoax at all. (I suppose it might have started as one, but if so, I suspect that would be impossible to source accurately. Either way, it's become real.) I know people who are playing it "for real" now. But my personal experience is not acceptable for an article here. If it was, I'd have written the article myself already. • You are perfectly correct in that things like "l33t speak" would not have qualified for an article when they were first created. It often takes years for reliable sources to appear on such neologisms. "The Game" may have to wait that long, too. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't intend to make you repeat yourself; I have read through the policies and guidelines you gave me. I didn't think it was all as clear as it could be, spent more time on what isn't allowed than what is and had overlapping policies (ie. an article must have reliable sources and be notable, which itself requires reliable sources). It is perfectly fine beuacracy for typical articles such as famous places, historic events, etc (but not famous people, I'll come on to that in a sec). However, the guidlines are designed to prevent personal and vanity pages (as well as hoaxes on wiki) and there is a grey area inbetween where certain forms of cultural knowledge falls to the beuacracy. I also did note that the rules technically would mean a famous person's own blog would be an unacceptable source and so if the celeb made some great statement or confession about themselves online it would be rejected for the wiki article.

Oh yes, I cannot link specifically to the translation as it is currently hosted at losethegame.com and any links to there are blocked on wiki (presumably due to the vandals). Its under the awards section on their site if you would like to have a look. There are a few other sources for the game they have collected on there but I didn't consider them citable, valid or big enough to worth a mention. I'm sure there are other places where the text is hosted but I haven't looked.

I'm glad you don't think it is fake. Looking through the history of this discussion it seemed that most people made the assumption that "there is no sources therefore it must not exist and you are all lying". I'm happy to know that the door is still open and if it is just a question of time I can live with that. A google search of "I just lost the game" brings up so many valid mentions of the game (I did actually check numerous results to see if they meant "The Game", not just looked at the total number of hits to the search :P ) so give it a while and should be big enough to get the attention it deserves. However, I still think the rules and guidlines are incomplete with regards to cultural phenomina and the bad publisity the Game has had in the past on wiki ( I do wonder if the Game had never been mentioned before and someone created a sensible article with those 2 source would there have been the fuss there is now) is making things unnecesarily difficult. --84.69.10.98 (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia policies and guidelines do address the question of current culture. For example, Avoid neologisms mentions that such will be very hard to work with, and may be inappropriate for Wikipedia. The guidelines on Notability also touch on this theme. • You're welcome to propose changes to any of this, over at the village pump. However, two of the most fundamental policies here are Verifiability and No original research. I don't know that it would be possible to be more allowing for current culture, and still satisfy those policies. • Ultimately, as far as "The Game" goes, I do think it is just a question of time, as you say. Even if it proves to be a fad, it's got enough of a following right now that it will have been a notable fad. But the sources don't exist yet. • Thanks again for listening. Wikipedia has a strong community, and there are lots of ways you can help, if you're interested. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note my dissatisfaction that this article does not exist because I actually would like encyclopedic information about it. I am annoyed that petty squabbles between bureaucrats and obsessives are getting in the way of an actual encyclopedic entry being produced. Especially when it's obvious to all but the willfully ignorant what needs to be written. So I have a question; wouldn't it be better for this article to exist with notes regarding its not citing sources than to simply have no article? As it is, it's clear to anyone concerned with this page that the phenomenon is real, it seems like only bureaucratic stubbornness is keeping this article down. Why? Quantumelfmage (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your dissatisfaction is noted. • We would all like encyclopedic information on "The Game". The problem is that there does not appear to be any available. • Avoid making personal attacks. • On Wikipedia, having no article at all is indeed preferable to having one without reliable sources. Verifiability and No original research are fundamental Wikipedia policies, and are essentially non-negotiable. • Again, there is no question about whether or not "The Game" is real. The question is entirely about finding sources which meet Wikipedia standards. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

DragonHawk, you're not the only one getting tired of repeating yourself... I've been discussing this article for years. I've pretty much given up now, but I check out these discussions from time to time.

Firstly, I did not create LoseTheGame.com "with the explicit purpose of justifying a Wikipedia article". I think people have confused this with SaveTheGame.org. I have said this many times now but it keeps getting brought up.

Secondly, all the citations I can find are on the Awards page at LoseTheGame.com. I can't link to it here as it seems to have been banned, so go to LoseTheGame.com slash awards.htm, or click the link on the main page.

What I believe to be reliable sources include:

• De Morgen article by Jeroen Verelst. Daily readership: 50,000+
• Daily Nebraskan article by Andy Boyle. Daily readership: 20,000+ "the fifth-largest circulation of all newspapers in the state of Nebraska"

What I believe to be evidence for notability includes:

• Kiwi FM by Caleb Anderson. Listeners: 40,000+
• Real Life Comic by Greg Dean. Daily readership: 60,000+
• LoseTheGame.com by Jonty Haywood. Unique hits: 300,000+ (which includes 30,000+ people who were all redirected there on 27th September 2007 after a prank involving the BBC 10PM national news)
• Facebook. Largest Game-based group: 20,000+ (70,000+ members of all Game-base groups)
• BBC Radio 4. Listeners: 6,000,000+ "the second most popular British domestic radio station"
• Kerrang! 105.2 Radio. Listeners: 1,000,000+

I have no evidence of the BBC Radio 4 mention or the Kerrang! radio mention. However, as I was interviewed by Kerrang! radio for a piece about The Game I am certain that it was mentioned, but someone will need to find evidence for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.182.1 (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we need to find citations for these sources. I have provided the De Morgen and Daily Nebraskan citation so we need:

• Information about when The Game was mentioned on Kiwi FM, BBC Radio 4 and Kerrang and (even better) transcripts or sound clips of it. The Radio 4 one should be easy enough as I believe most of their stuff is stored on the BBC online archive.
• The link to the Real Life Comic strip that mentions the Game (I have seen it but forgot to note the address).

You need to do what I do; find as much evidence as you can and wave it in their faces so they cannot deny it even if they want to. Bickering with them on the rules (while they are unfair and biased against things such as the Game) has got us no-where for years so a new aproach is needed. --84.69.10.98 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an MP3 recording of the Kiwi FM mention on the LoseTheGame.com page I mention. The link to the Real Life comic is there too but nothing online can be used as a reliable source. As far as I'm aware it has to be published on paper so I'm not even sure whether the radio mentions count. But they are certainly all evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.76.48 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon @ 58.152.76.48: Online sources are acceptable, provided they qualify as a reliable source (see that page, and the pages it links to, for details). For example, a notable newspaper which publishes online is perfectly acceptable. • The reason many online sites are not considered acceptable is that they are often self-published sources by Wikipedia standards. For example, anyone can put anything they want on MySpace, so information published on MySpace does not help the cause of verifiability. Verifiability is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. If it cannot be verified by others, than it is not acceptable here. • An comic strip (in print or online) is not a reliable source for anything other than that comic strip. Think of this as writing a report for your boss/teacher. If you cited a comic strip as a source for something unrelated to that comic strip, do you think your boss/teacher would accept it? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon @ 84.69.10.98: Wikipedia is intended to be a verifiable encyclopedia of notable topics. If that makes you unhappy, I'm sorry, but your personal happiness is not Wikipedia's purpose. If you considered this "unfair and biased", then I kindly suggest you do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. There are alternative outlets available if you would like to publish your opinions elsewhere. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon @ 202.82.182.1: Thanks for the correction regarding the origin of the website. The big problem with LoseTheGame.com is that it explicitly advocates vandalism of Wikipedia. For a lot of people here at Wikipedia, that makes it highly suspect. That seems a reasonable reaction to me. • Unfortunately, and as I've stated above, most of the sources you and others have mentioned is they lack all the information needed to verify them. For a newspaper, we we need things like publisher address, issue, date, and/or page. For a radio program, studio address, date and time of original broadcast, the program/segment name, and the host's name. • It is also worth repeating that merely being mentioned, or mere popularity, does not constitute notability by Wikipedia standards. So just because some paper has a large circulation, and mentioned "The Game" off-hand in some column somewhere, doesn't mean it is notable by Wikipedia standards. The source has to assert that notability. • The Daily Nebraskan article is better than nothing, but it's pretty weak -- not enough to write an article about. • A fundamental problem here is the lack of verifiable notability. The page on "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" explain this problem. "The Game" is new, just as Scrabble was back in 1938. "The Game" is real, and it may be popular, but that doesn't give us verifiable notability by Wikipedia standards. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an online version of the De Morgen article on their website but you need an account to view it. The dates of the radio broadcasts are given on the LoseTheGame awards page, along with a lot of other information. Are you inferring that because LoseTheGame mentions Wikipedia vandalism as a strategy for playing The Game, that they may have forged the newspaper articles and radio recordings?

Ignoring the radio broadcasts, and going by Wikipedia policies and recommendations:

The De Morgen and Daily Nebraskan articles fulfill WP:Vs requirement for multiple published sources. And both mention how widespread The Game is, providing verifiable notability. Therefore this article should exist. 58.152.76.46 (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)