Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Dorkly: new section
Line 75: Line 75:
::: Both founders and every editor I spot checked were hobbyists (no professional pedigrees). That aside, there's no editorial policy of oversight or any other sign that it's a source of repute. –&nbsp;[[user talk:czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:black'><u>czar</u></span>]] 17:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::: Both founders and every editor I spot checked were hobbyists (no professional pedigrees). That aside, there's no editorial policy of oversight or any other sign that it's a source of repute. –&nbsp;[[user talk:czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:black'><u>czar</u></span>]] 17:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I've removed the GameCritics mention from the article. <span style='font:bold small-caps 0.94em "Nimbus Mono L";color:#000000'>[[User:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''JAG'''</font>]][[User talk:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''UAR'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp; 21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I've removed the GameCritics mention from the article. <span style='font:bold small-caps 0.94em "Nimbus Mono L";color:#000000'>[[User:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''JAG'''</font>]][[User talk:Jaguar|<font color="black">'''UAR'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp; 21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

== Dorkly ==

{{#switch:{{NAMESPACEE}}
|{{ns:0}}=<br><font size="+2" color=red>Please do not use the findsources template in articles.</font><br><br>
|#default=''Find video game sources:'' <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q={{urlencode:"Dorkly"}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{2}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{3}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{4}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{5}}}}}|}}&num=50 "Dorkly"{{#if:|&nbsp;{{{2}}}|}}{{#if:|&nbsp;{{{3}}}|}}{{#if:|&nbsp;{{{4}}}|}}{{#if:|&nbsp;{{{5}}}|}}] &ndash; [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?{{#ifeq:|yes|&as_price=p1|}}&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-wikipedia&q={{urlencode:"Dorkly"}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{2}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{3}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{4}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{5}}}}}|}} news]{{int:dot-separator}}[http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q={{urlencode:"Dorkly"}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{2}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{3}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{4}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{5}}}}}|}} books]{{int:dot-separator}}[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q={{urlencode:"Dorkly"}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{2}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{3}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{4}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{5}}}}}|}} scholar]{{int:dot-separator}}[http://images.google.com/images?safe=off&as_rights=(cc_publicdomain%7ccc_attribute%7ccc_sharealike%7ccc_noncommercial%7ccc_nonderived)&q={{urlencode:"Dorkly"}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{2}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{3}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{4}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{5}}}}}|}} images] &ndash; [http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q={{urlencode:"Dorkly"}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{2}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{3}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{4}}}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{urlencode:{{{5}}}}}|}} VGRS]{{int:dot-separator}}{{search link|"Dorkly"{{#if:|+{{{2}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{{3}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{{4}}}|}}{{#if:|+{{{5}}}|}} prefix:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games|WPVG Talk}}{{#if:www.dorkly.com|{{int:dot-separator}}[[Special:Linksearch/www.dorkly.com|LinkSearch]]{{int:dot-separator}}[http://toolserver.org/~eagle/crosswiki.php?search=*.www.dorkly.com&totalwikis=57 CrossWiki]{{int:dot-separator}}[http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Awww.dorkly.com LinkTo]|}}</span>}}

Do we have a stance on [[Dorkly]]? They [http://www.dorkly.com/static/about seem to have their own staff]], though not that big of one, and are apparently owned by the same people who do [[College Humor]]. I'm not overly familiar with their work though. Thoughts? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:01, 13 July 2015

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.


The Jimquistion

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

Saw this on the Hatred (video game) page. Recalling that Jim Sterling left The Escapist a couple of months ago, as well as him formally from Destructoid, there may be some reliability from him. Like Robert Christgau for music. Though it just being a WordPress website does make it come off more as a blog. GamerPro64 04:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually support this. Jim is one of the finest games journalists we have and, surprisingly, has been on metacritic since The Jimquisition (.com) launched. I'd call him reliable, but probably deserves to fall into situational until graduation (similar to The Escapist). Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 06:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's certainly been cited by a large number of RSes in the past and I believe he has something of a reputation as an "established expert on the subject matter" whose work in the relevant field has been reliably published in the past. As such his I think his writing at other sites might be considered to be reliable as a "self-published expert source". -Thibbs (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth Robert Christgau is definitely the exception, not the rule, over at WP:ALBUMS. Just about every source that has been suggested on the grounds of "He's like Christgau" has largely been rejected. Its rather hard to be elevated quite to that level. Not sure JS is there or not. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sterling isn't high tier of a critic like Christgau is. I meant more of individual's writing reviews instead of being part of a established websites like his previous venues. GamerPro64 16:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this for a bit more attention, as he was briefly used at Fallout Shelter till being removed in favor of IGN as a better source. The archives suggests that nearly 5 years ago there was one lengthy-ish section about him, with a lot of back and forth that seemed mostly tied to personal taste of him. -- ferret (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's fair to use his statements of opinion but the point of a reliable source is editorial oversight for statements of facts. As a one-man outlet, the Jimquisition is feasibly never the best source for statements of fact. Even then, I'd only use his opinion when it is notable, as in referenced by other outlets, but even then I'd cite that secondary source instead of Jimquisition directly... I'd also be hesitant to give him "self-published expert source" carte blanche and I think the guideline's advice on that mirrors what I just said. So, situational. – czar 17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebits

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

Their about page says their column was published in a couple of major publications, which I haven't verified, but the staff doesn't look too hot from the journalistic expertise side. I don't see the editorial oversight either... – czar 05:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable - I'm not seeing anything worthwhile on this site. GamerPro64 01:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesetwatch

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/ is the link. Is Gamesetwatch a reliable source? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Its been determined to be. consensus. GamerPro64 17:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GameRanx and DualShockers

Been seeing GameRanx being used lately (mostly for "Best of" list), while DualShockers I've have heard was reliable but there wasn't any real consensus on it.

GameRanx: http://www.gameranx.com

DualShockers: http://www.dualshockers.com

GamerPro64 02:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Dualshockers was deemed unreliable. I'm always removing it from Tezero's work, and I thought that was why... Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the archives, there's wasn't any real consensus made. Just some talks about COI and spam issues. Nothing much on its merit. GamerPro64 02:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an argument for its reliability? I see no editorial policy and its EIC has no industry experience. Otherwise it looks like a straightforward no. – czar 05:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saw it mentioned at Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy's FAC so might as well give it its day in court. GamerPro64 06:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say unreliable. The staff has no special credentials and I see no reputation for checking facts. It's used twice in that FAC article: once as a news post and once as a longer piece by Alexa Ray Corriea (even though the current site doesn't show author bylines). She wrote it freelance but later worked at Polygon and GameSpot, so I'm not sure how I'd treat that one, but the site generally has no hallmarks of reliability. – czar 16:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unreliable - per Czar, and the prior discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gameranx looks unreliable as well, same as last time. They have an ethics policy but no formal editorial oversight (apart from an anonymous source measure in the ethics policy). – czar 16:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's expand upon GameRanx. They're owned by Complex, which I've also seen be used for "best of" lists. So how reliable is its parent website? GamerPro64 21:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an extended opinion of Complex Media, but their list of game website holdings doesn't indicate whether any of the magazine's oversight extends to the sub-sites. (For that matter, I'm not even sure of the relation between Complex the magazine and the website.) And as most of the regulars here already know, I don't think much of the "top X" listicles as articles that we should be citing for any real editorial import. So I don't know what's up with Complex, but their gaming sites appear to be functioning apart from whatever editorial oversight they have, and they each should be evaluated on their own merits. – czar 22:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, how much is relevant to be cited by other RSes? It's cited by CNET, Time , VG247, GameZone, GameSpot, among others according to the WP:VG/RS searching tool ([1], [2]). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It factors in, but in this case I'd say that DualShockers is being cited the same way they would cite a third party blog or critic. Professional credibility is usually a factor alongside (not in replacement of) editorial oversight. But I've said enough on this so others should chime in. – czar 02:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GameCritics?

Unless I'm missing something on the page, I'm surprised GameCritics is not on the list of sources? I'm also here to ask if it's reliable, as I'm in the process of bringing an article up to GA with one of its reviews included. Its about us page has a list of critics and a philosophy, but even so, I'm still unsure if it can be used as a source. If it's already on the list of reliable sources as a different name or if it has been discussed about before, then I'm sorry to bring it up. JAGUAR  22:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks unreliable. I see no hallmarks of reliability (editorial oversight or industry expertise). – czar 23:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. A couple of the critics I have checked have professional backgrounds but the fact that the about-us page states that "anyone can apply" to be a critic makes me unsure... and I'm still lingering on building up one of the reviews as I don't feel qualified enough to decide whether or not it can be used! JAGUAR  16:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both founders and every editor I spot checked were hobbyists (no professional pedigrees). That aside, there's no editorial policy of oversight or any other sign that it's a source of repute. – czar 17:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've removed the GameCritics mention from the article. JAGUAR  21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dorkly

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

Do we have a stance on Dorkly? They seem to have their own staff], though not that big of one, and are apparently owned by the same people who do College Humor. I'm not overly familiar with their work though. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]