Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.26.211.87 (talk) at 17:26, 19 November 2023 (→GamingOnLinux). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard


Shortcut

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|...site name...|linksearch=...site URL...}} in order to provide other users with some easily accessible links to check up on the source.

Click here to start a new discussion thread


TechRaptor

Find video game sources: "TechRaptor" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

The last discussion on TechRaptor was in 2014(!) apparently here. Since then they've been cited in multiple books and scholarly looks from a quick google search, and their About Us page also mentions them taking a hard stance against AI-generated articles. They do feel like a significant cut above some of the websites out there at this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks fairly reputable, but I would suggest a more detailed look at their writers and their credentials before considering deeming reliable. I'm aware they recently picked one up who has previously written for an unreliable and situational source, and checking a few others they either wrote for sources that don't seem to have had the question asked about how reliable they are or haven't written elsewhere as far as I can see listed. I'm aware of others sources being dismissed for this and it seems no-one has brought it up yet.
As a note, the CEO of TechRaptor is the COO of OpenCritic, which does show they'll have industry connections/influence at the top along with breaking stories. That is just one factor of course as you could say the same of TheGamer, but it does help. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Leaning unreliable: To borrow a comment made about another website from @Ferret - 'Large staff list with little journalism credentials'. This was the case during the 2018 discussion and still seems to be the case now. TechRaptor seems to be high-quality for the most part, but this hasn't changed.
Only one of their 7 senior staff has a journalism related qualification and some don't mention any academic ones, only experience, though I suppose their Tabletop Editor did manage tabletop shop so will likely be knowledgeable. As mentioned before, their new join (who is senior staff) wrote for an unreliable source and a situational source with no other history listed. Others seem to mostly be hired based on their love of gaming and at least one seems to have not written for any other sites, even small ones.
Looking through their recently published work, the non-senior staff authors I noted seemed to lean on the side of no experience at other sites or credentials noted. They've also previously hired students.
By regular standards are they reliable? I'd say yes. By Wikipedia standards? Even disregarding the whole GamersGate history where they were said to be involved, they don't seem to have enough professional experience. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, there was a second discussion in 2018.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support changing to reliable for content post-2019. They apparently culled most of their pro-GamerGate content in 2017, but I recall seeing similar—though more mild—content when I looked for that 2018 discussion. At that time, they had a satire section called "KekRaptor" with vaguely culture-war-ish "satire" content, but it looks like that was folded around 2019. Looking at their content now, it looks solid to me. Kudos to them for turning the site around. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable - Looks good to me. Seen them break big news stories a couple of times. GamerPro64 23:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find the "cited by Google Books" claim somewhat questionable. Look at how some of these Google Books sources are used - for example, WALKING SIMULATORS, #GAMERGATE, AND THE GENDER OF WANDERING cites "Quinnspiracy" from Techraptor, but that's not as an endorsement of TechRaptor, but rather as acknowledging that they're a useful source for the GG-side of the story. "Misogyny Online: A Short (and Brutish) History", judging by the name, is also citing TechRaptor, but hardly in an approving sense of "these guys are telling the right side of the story." Now, these are all generally citing TechRaptor circa-2014, and there are some GBooks results for later TechRaptor citings... but... often for fairly trivial matters that suggest the author was just grabbing whatever came back first on Google. Also, I don't find "a hard stance against AI-generated articles" to be meaningful in favor or against their reliability. Plenty of publications were unreliable before AI chatbots were a thing! SnowFire (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to add my support that "Google Books" is slowly becoming a worthless thing to check, both in terms of reliability considerations and general sourcing. It's full of so much self-published crap, student essays, etc, etc. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh it's still worth checking, but like any source evaluation you can't just look at one number and uncritically decide good or not. In this context, though, I don't think there's exactly a strong pedigree of TechRaptor content being cited as an authority for general games journalism. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I did say it was a quick search on my part.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I share some of SnowFire's reservations. Going against AI-generated articles is a low bar. The Google Books footnotes don't really add much credibility either. I'd like to see some other editors check in. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not a lot of others have chimed in. I took a look at some random articles and they seemed fine enough (if ad-spattered), per Woodroar. I might suggest that in the name of caution, they only be approved for post-2020 (rather than 2018). But I suppose if there are any reports of unreliable content being used, we can deal with 'em when they come up. SnowFire (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Press Start

Find video game sources: "Press Start" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

The website is an Australian video game news and review site that is a subsidiary of a major national media company Southern Cross Austereo. Has a fixed review team and the website contains a review guideline that includes a guide of ethics and scoring system that affirms editorial independence under the Australian Journalists Association. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will be the first to give an opinion and the one to make sure that this section has an opinion. I looked at the review and team sections, and I found the review section satisfactory. However, I had to consider the team members individually, so here is what I found. A freelance writer had his articles published on Gizmodo and Kotaku, and also edited for PC World Australia. One person contributed to Game Informer, and another worked for Hyper and PC Powerplay. One writer freelanced for IGN and Kotaku, as did another for IGN. I admit, I had hoped to see more. Then again, I could have gotten nothing about staff credentials at all. It does get better, though. I had to look up Southern Cross Austereo, which bought the website in 2016, and it turns out that the organization has won over 300 Australian Commercial Radio Awards in its 12-year history—impressive by any metric. Press Start states that it adheres to the code of the Australian Journalists Association (a.k.a. the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance). However, I could not find anything in the way of membership. Until then, I had assumed that there was a formal list of members published. Maybe there is something I am missing? Perhaps it simply agrees to abide by the code. Anyway, the source has been cited by the media and at least one academic book. My biggest gripe is not having enough information that would lead me to a definitive conclusion, leading me to conclude that it is situational. If the authors open up more about their credentials and/or someone comes forth with solid evidence that Press Start follows the code of the Australian Journalists Association, I would definitely call it reliable. FreeMediaKid$ 03:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Times

Find video game sources: "Nintendo Times" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I've started this because I noticed that it has not been discussed yet. ภץאคгöร 19:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently split on this one with the surface level information I got at a quick glimpse. They're long running and have gone for 33 years, but I also don't see much information about them directly in terms of credentials. Is there any more information about them that I'm simply not seeing right now? NegativeMP1 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing they have been in business for 33 years? Copyright says 2015-2023. There's no About Us page. Unreliable. There's no author credentials provided, etc. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the 33 years thing due to a review that was published thirty years ago and a banner saying it. Either way I agree with it being Unreliable. NegativeMP1 21:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to set review publication dates to match game release dates, which is... really dumb. -- ferret (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The site's shtick is that it occasionally posts articles as if it was 30 years ago. According to the EiC's LinkedIn, the site was established in July 2015. He seems to write the bulk of the content, safe for some of those retro reviews. IceWelder [✉] 21:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable. Such stellar staff blurbs as Adam “McSNES” Martinez, gaming drop-out and FuncoLand ghost, has spent his entire life training to review games for YOU, the loyal readers of Nintendo Times. Adam is permanently banned from Final Fantasy XI: Online, his favorite game. and Aaron got his NES in 1991 and has loved and collected video games ever since. In addition to gaming, he enjoys Stephen King novels, Twins Baseball, and his cats. inspires little. Their publication date shenanigans noted above is terrible. The EIC claims widespread industry but only denotes they contribute to Gaming Age, currently a situational source for unclear reasons. It seems Gaming Age is claimed to have been part of IGN, but now is related to NeoGAF, an unreliable source. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unreliable per ferret and their weird date stuff. That's a fun gimmick (for some I guess) but not great for use as a factual source. This very discussion is all the proof you need that it causes confusion among readers (and rightfully so.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website is even powered by Wordpressan example of an unreliable Wordpress blog (clarify wording per below, I am not categorically saying all Wordpress blogs are unreliable)- at the bottom of the page there is a small note that Theme: ColorMag by ThemeGrill. Powered by WordPress. (Emphasise mine) There is zero about us, no editorial policies, no staff expertise, and limited USEBYOTHERS (OpenCritic uses it and it's mentioned once in a book, but that's about it). I would say that it is a patently unreliable source. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many reliable sources use WordPress. TarkusABtalk/contrib 02:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: To clarify, I agree that many Wordpress sources can be reliable if there are subject-matter-expertise or editorial policies and staff listings, which is supported by the RSP entry itself. My point was that this one is purely a Wordpress blog and not a reliable website that only uses WordPress as a platform. Apologies for not making this clearer. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WordPress used to be a trademark of an unreliable blog, but that's not really the case any more in recent years. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wanted to chime in and say that while i have never used the reviews of Nintendo Times in any article i've worked on so far, i have used their NES Hub (https://www.nintendotimes.com/nintendo-entertainment-system-game-hubs/) as a guide to find sources for NES games. Not every North American NES title is listed but a good chunk of them have their own dedicated pages with sources talking about the game! Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unreliable. Pure trash. One gets the impression of reading a high school or college student-run online magazine, but one without any teacher or professor oversight. That, or it's just a few Gen Xers or millennials who purport to be running an online magazine, but I am inclined to believe have not read a single article from any of what we would consider reliable sources as a guide to quality journalism. To be fair, if they thought that sources in the green are less trustworthy than those in the dark red or even gray, then to them Nintendo Times must be more reliable than The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Globe and Mail, The Daily Telegraph, and The Times combined. As far as the content of the website goes, it turns out that the "misdated" articles carry the "Warp Zone" tag, which is "a unique section that aims to recreate what happened 30 years ago today. All articles and reviews will be written as if from that time period." That's. Just. Pointless. There is no point that a publication should ever date their reviews like that, or really reenact the past without justification. Besides that, I see red flags everywhere, including, as others have pointed out, nothing about author credentials or ethics, and the fact that other publications would rather that one not know about this one. In short, while the authors may not be bad people, they certainly are not good journalists either, and Nintendo Times can be disposed of as a source of facts the next time one eats out. Also, pardon my arrogance early on. (Redeeming quality: It does have PDFs of scans of manuals, newsletters, magazines. In fact, I could have used it to upload issues of Computer Entertainer on the Internet Archive, though I ended up getting the scans from two other websites.) FreeMediaKid$ 00:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three defunct websites

Let's get these dead websites reviewed so users editing about old games will have a quick guide to turn to.

Find video game sources: "GamePower" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

  • A website that delivered news, features, previews, and reviews from 1997 until 2001. It was owned by CMP Media, the same company that owned Gamasutra, and if its list of staff at the time of shut down is to be believed, it was rather impressive. The site's link now redirects to the website of Informa, the company's successor. While arguably the best contender of the three for reliability, unfortunately, not all the pages for the sources have been archived, at least not on the Internet Archive, and I dread that, in the absence of someone coming forth with the missing content, pages like those have been lost in limbo. It may very well feel like a Pyrrhic win if it does get counted as reliable.

Find video game sources: "Gamers.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

  • Gamers.com was founded in 1996 as a website geared toward hardcore gamers by Dennis "Thresh" Fong. Thus, the website bears relation with FiringSquad, also founded by Thresh and a reliable source. Like FiringSquad, it seems to have also been widely covered by the press and cited as a source of information. It was bought in 2001 by Ziff Davis and seems to have ceased publishing content in 2006 and shut down the next year. In case someone doubts its credibility, one of its writers wrote for 1Up, another became editor-in-chief for Maximum PC and Head of Hardware for PC Gamer US, and a third freelanced for IGN for about twelve years. One of its operators edited the previews column for GameSpot; was executive editor for GMR and 1Up; and editor-in-chief for Electronic Gaming Monthly and Ziff Davis. A multimedia producer edited for Computec's Incite website, wrote for GameSpy, and authored over 50 strategy guides for Prima Games, as well as about 10 for BradyGames. I am sure I do not need to dig up more evidence to explain why I think the website is reliable.

Find video game sources: "Gameworld Network" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

  • Not so much a website as it was a network of game websites founded in 2003 and hosted by Gameworld Industries, including Gameworld Network, as well as Console Gameworld, as well as platform-specific sites such as PC Gameworld, Cube Gameworld, Dreamcast Gameworld, N64 Gameworld, PS2 Gameworld, PSX Gameworld, and Xbox Gameworld and two others not relevant for this discussion. It should be noted that PC Gameworld first appeared five years before the network. Not much was said about the websites then, but it seems that the gaming press was well aware of it and occasionally cited it. In 2008, the same year that the network collapsed, one of its writers left to become an editor for PC Gamer US, eventually ascending to become the magazine's global editor in chief. Another worked as a freelance writer for GameZone the next year. A third wrote for Polygon and Vice Media's Waypoint, as a freelancer for G4, Joystiq, Kill Screen, and MTV, and became editor-in-Chief for Game Developer. I understand that there have been at least four discussions, the consensus of which does not clearly favor reliability. At a minimum, it should be classified as situational, where the reliability of the author is determined on a case-by-case basis.

FreeMediaKid$ 22:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GamingOnLinux

Find video game sources: "GamingOnLinux" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

A useful site to add to the Platform Specific list, this site covers games which are playable on Linux systems, including the Steam Deck and SteamOS more generally. Third party coverage of this site at howtogeek.com describes it as "a great resource of news on all things related to gaming on Linux and SteamOS"

Wikipedia article Video games and Linux states "The GamingOnLinux website was launched on July 4, 2009, and eventually succeeded LinuxGames as the main source of news and commentary" and cites it 54 times.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources&oldid=1185896273"