Talk:GameSpot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 

Update to controversy[edit]

I realize this is a bit late, but last year Gerstmann's(spelling?) firing was confirmed to be a result of this review(and a few others like it). Since the articles on Kane and Lynch and the author himself have both been updated to confirm this, I updated this one as well.

Conspiracy theory revert[edit]

The "conspiracy theory" claim was made by the Gamespot staff. The gaming community, as a whole, has reacted pretty negatively to what happened and doesn't really buy into their claims that it's just silly rumors. See the discussion below. It's worth including, considering the amount of press it's gotten. It's not UFO\New World Order type stuff. I actually included the "conspiracy theory" remark to keep the section balanced. Now I regret it if someone's going to take those words at face-value. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Robot[edit]

Someone put a "Wikipedia discourages Trivial sections" tag in this section for some reason. It clearly is not a "Trivia Section", mearly a section on something that happens to have trivia in its name. --DotDarkCloud 12:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

"Gamespot is known for giving biased reviews, and are a pro-360 website. This was proven by their poor review of Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, giving it a 7.5 when everyone else gave it 9+."

This is obvious vandalism, and I'm just going to go ahead and delete it.Laugh-O-Gram 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, lots of Fanboys vandalizing the page as of late. CraigP 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well it's not like they don't appear to be biased when they downplay games that aren't on the 360. But yes, it's vandalism and should be removed.Modem 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A quick search of the review archives on Gamespot proves you wrong. The score variance for Xbox360 appears identical to competitors. Are you still nursing a grudge over Ratchet and Clank? The 7.5 was only their opinion, and a variance in scoring is no identifier of bias.71.35.252.65 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We believe closing the page down would be just as great!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.28.138 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Gerstmann[edit]

Recent edits adding that he was "fired" or "rumored" to have left under controversial situations, etc., have been removed because they were unsourced by reliable, third-party sources. Please be aware that blogs are not reliable sources, forums are not reliable sources, personal sites, etc, are not reliable sources. The biographies of living persons policy applies here, when alleging someone was fired from a job, so any information about the situation must be written neutrally, and be strongly cited by reliable sources, such as news articles. ArielGold 22:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

what about industry websites reporting it?

<a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/rumor-gamespots-editorial-director-fired-over-kane-and-lynch-rev/">Joystick with official statements from gamespot not denying eidos applied pressure</a>
<a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/gamespot-issues-short-comment-on-gerstmann-firing/"></a>
<a href="http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/30/1317259">still</a>
<a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/eidos-and-gamespot-forums-exploding-over-gerstmann-incident/">generating</a>
<a href="http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212394&page=43">significant</a>
<a href="http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=63876">discussion </a>
<a href="http://digg.com/gaming_news/Rumor_Gamespot_Editor_Fired_Over_Negative_Kane_Lynch_Review">throughout</a>
<a href="http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=40383">the</a>
<a href="http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8169&Itemid=2">online</a>
<a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/79445-Gamespot-Editor-Fired-Rumors-Say-Eidos-Did-It">gaming</a>
<a href="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=31120">community</a>,

Here's another one from Gamepolitics.com: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/12/01/did-gamespot-commit-brand-suicide-with-jeff-gerstmann-firing/ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And another: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/11/30/free-jeff-gerstmann/ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just let it alone. With such a fluid situation - with numerous emotions bubbling over - it's best to wait until the entire story can be told. Make a new Wiki entry if you want to discuss this, as GameSpot is far more than one editor's controversy and the rumors surrounding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.70.136 (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article from 1UP: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164656 . Not sure how reliable this is since Ziff Davis is one of CNET's main competitors, but they're generally seen as pretty reputable I think. 129.199.159.36 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

From preceding article "The short of it, confirmed through our own sources: Gerstmann was fired for his negative review of Eidos Interactive's Kane & Lynch. But there's more to the story in which Gerstmann -- one of the site's leading editors for over a decade -- was terminated this week." 129.199.159.36 06:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Google News has more than 100 articles regarding the Gerstman case, including Ars Technica, Wired and The Guardian. This controversy is also the first mention of Gamespot in Norway's second biggest newspaper: http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2007/12/02/519948.html -- Seems quite notable. 88.91.84.35 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since this story has happened. So, "the story has been told." I added a section on it, with every statement being cited in a reliable source. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the firing should be considered a "controversy". Mark321123 (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

I've protected the page from editing due to violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Before anything regarding the Gerstmann incident can be added, it must be sourced with reliable sources. Discuss the issue here and find reliable sources for any additions you wish to make. --- RockMFR 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An official CNet podcast discusses the situation:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8300-11455_7-10.html?tag=blogHed

that seems to be a fair enough source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blapblapblap (talkcontribs) 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I get unprotected[edit]

I didn't realize all the rules Wikipedia had to go through but I figured them out.

Can you unlock it for me, or at least change Tim Tracy's thing to: " Tim Tracy: Allegedly quit for unknown reasons (Ref the blog post) "

Thanks. - Woozie

And are people allowed to post information from blogs and forums if it's only rumors, and states that they're only rumors? Does joystiq, or kotaku count as reliable sources? - Woozie

Wikipedia, the place where conspiracies theories about cruise missiles cleverly disguised as planes using alien technology brought down the WTC get their own page, but where adding a footnote on a subject that has an entire industry in shambles is frowned upon. Tsk-tsk-tsk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.204.39 (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because blogs and forums are so reliable. Oh wait, they're not. Come back when the reasons for Gertsmann's firing are more than a rumor and printed in a source with fact-checking. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention we are dealing with a living person. We have to be sensitive of what is said about him or her.--BirdKr 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but those theories, are posted as theories, and not definitive facts. So as long as the rumors are stated as rumors what's the problem? They're like theories but on a smaller scale. - Woozie

Again, it relates to a living person. From Wikipedia's guideline, we have to be very conservative of what is said about the subject. As you said, it's a rumor. You wouldn't like it if a rumor went around that relates to you would you? Even though it's simply a rumor and explicitly known as rumor, you'd still be sensitive about it. If I recall, we don't post any rumors unless the subject of the article itself is about that rumor. Just wait until the fire is washed away with the smoke cleared. As of right now, the only fact is that he got fired, in which itself is not notable...since people get fired all the time. The reason/cause and its implications will probably make the event important for this article. As of now, we don't know for certain what those are. --BirdKr 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it would be a good idea to unprotect this article at the moment. There is a strong likelihood that this article will continue to be used to propagate speculation and unsourced information. If there is something specific that needs to be added to the article, discuss exactly what you want to be added with reliable sources to back it up. --- RockMFR 05:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, and me who thought I could get reliable information for my own children home project on wikipedia. But here's the one subject I can make a difference in, the subject where I work in, and I can't even make it to a foot note! http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/02/gerstmann-gate-sunday-morning-update/ see this link. You people make me sick - there is no truth to wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.204.39 (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's isn't supposed to have the "truth" as much as it's supposed to have verifiable information from reliable sources. A blog entry that references other blog entries and personal websites isn't at all reliable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing a draft of Gertsmann's dismissal[edit]


On November 30, 2007, Gamespot fired its Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann. While this development was reported by video-game media and coummunity sources, many noted suspicions due to the nature of the dismissal. Most of the sources pointed out Gerstmann was fired shortly after his tepid review on Kane & Lynch was published, and subsequently the disappearance of Kane and Lynch ads and Gerstmann’s video review of the game as well.[1][2]

Multiple gaming media outlets expressed concern of this incident, specifically on the rumor that Eidos, publisher of Kane & Lynch and advertiser for Gamespot, could have pressured Gamespot, an independent media company from Eidos, to fire one of its employees due to an unfavorable editorial of one of Eidos's products.[3][4] Notably, Ziff Davis, parent company of 1UP.com (Gamespot's rival), held a protest outside Gamespot’s headquarters specifically on this concern.[5]

CNET, Gamespot’s parent company, responded that it stands behind all editorials that are produced.[6] CNET was unable to provide specific details of the incident due to privacy and policy issues.[7] The initial statement was followed with another stating CNET does not “terminate employees based on external pressure from advertisers”.[8] On December 4, 2007, Gamespot issued a statement on the incident quoting from Greg Brannan, CNET Networks Entertainment's vice president of programming:[9]

"The accusations in the media that it has done so are unsubstantiated and untrue. Jeff's departure stemmed from internal reasons unrelated to any buyer of advertising on GameSpot"

In the week's edition of Gamespot's feature, Hotspot, multiple staff members addressed the incident and responded to numerous circumstances including the timing of the removal of the Kane & Lynch video review.



This is my initial draft so far. Feel free to comment or edit this draft. Remember that we're not lashing against anyone and that a LIVING PERSON is involved. --BirdKr 11:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs "reliable sources." But if we're going with that motto than all we can really do is say that Jeff Gerstmann was fired for unknown reasons, and Tim Tracy quit/was fired for unknown reasons. Which is already in the "personalities" section. I think we should probably wait until the end of this week, stuff normally doesn't happen over the weekends so we might see some stuff Dec 3rd - Dec 11th. --Woozie
I will be adding the sources once the draft is completed. I agree however, that we need to wait before we start updating the article. --BirdKr 14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This seems WP:BLP compliant. There is no allegation of malpractise against any living individual - your text simply reports the existence of the rumours (as many major news organisations have done) without offering any opinion as to their truthfulness or otherwise. When we do unlock the page, we will need something about the whole Gerstamnn issue, and this text would fit the bill. Cynical 16:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Added citations. Will exactly expand as this incident develops. I also revised the 2nd paragraph for more clarity, but it seems a bit wordy. --BirdKr 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Article is semi-protected. Created a section about this with the current events tag--BirdKr 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Spectre, what makes a "section worthy" of being added into a Wikipedia article? There is almost no, if any, analysis of this event from me or other editors, hardly any POV aside from few mistakes and no original research. This event is notable enough that multiple gaming media outlets have been covering it with some current and former editors from other media outlets expressing concern about this. The situation isn't 100% clear, but that's why there's a "current event" tagged to it. --BirdKr 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. They apply to companies too. The K&L thing is still a rumour until CNet/Gamespot/Eidos say otherwise. We also don't need one full section and two paragraphs over one reviewer getting fired. Will (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)'
Noted, thanks for the response. One tip though on edits, it's unnecessary to "express" your reason with "frak" and "crap", made me think as if you had some personal vendetta on this issue. --BirdKr 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a GameFAQs user. I'm just as annoyed about this as the regular gamer. But this is an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. At any rate, unless the case escalates to the courtroom, the only suitable place is the article on the reviewer. Will (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If reliable sources are covering, then we can include it, regardless of what CNet/Gamespot/Eidos say. -Chunky Rice 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. However, all news articles that imply that Gerstmann was fired as a result of the Kane & Lynch review fail Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, as they are all based on a RUMOUR. Will (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the articles from sources like 1up and IGN and other normally reliable sources are unusable - they are reporting not what they are say, but what is circulating in the gaming community and generally adding "we cannot confirm these rumors at this time", showing they are keeping themselves distant from the rumor but trying to perform non-biased, fact-checking reporting. IIRC, Kotaku is the one that had the initial rumor, so yes, that one story is not usable (or at least, as the only source to support it), but the "secondary source" coverage of what this rumor is, as long as they aren't stating that it is their rumor, is within the guidelines for WP:V. --MASEM 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We still can't use them to verify the rumour, though. The only thing we know for certain is that he was fired. Leave it at that. Will (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to Chunky Rice, my problem here is the fact that the cause of the dismissal is still a rumor. The dismissal of an editor is hardly significant, but the rumors of a cause surrounding it COULD make it significant. Since the cause of this dismissal is still unknown or unconfirmed, the event itself is insignificant. Question is, should we still "report" about this incident, noting it's notable due to rumors? Significant because multiple credible reliable sources are reporting it even though the rumor itself is still unverified? As of right now, the issue has strong sources but a weak foundation: an unconfirmed reason.
WP:NOT#NEWS asks editors to take into consideration, especially in the cases of living people and companies, the long-term notability. Think "will people care or remember in a month? A year?". Will (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sceptre, please try to respond in a calm manner. Your reasons are good, but has a poor impression due to the style you convey them.--BirdKr 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I sometimes bold for emphasis if people ignore points, as I find that as rude as the shouting in the first place. Will (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We cannot report the rumor as fact, but we can certainly indicante that the rumor exists and is prevelant, based on reliable sources. For example, take a look at the article on Larry Craig. There are allegations and rumors about his sexuality. Because those rumors were picked up and reported on by reliable sources, we can include them in the article. -Chunky Rice 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The rumour is causing a great deal of controvesry. The fact that the editors was dismissed on unclear terms which is giving CNet HUGE backlash should be covered.--Scabloo 04:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the amount of backlash for numerous parties (Gamespot and CNet primarily) is worthy of being included. Mainstream news and Wikipedia include terms like "alleged" often when covering current events. Even though there is no citeable proof that Jeff was fired for his review at the request of Eidos, the backlash (flooding the boards, rating K&L one star, numerous critical articles) is something definite. --JDCMAN (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I would like for the section to be added, read this from WP:NOT#NEWS:

"Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article"

At the moment, the incident is huge due to a rumor that has been denied by both Gamespot and CNET. The only ammunition that verifies this rumor is based on blogs quoting unverified insiders within Gamespot. As for the Larry Craig comparison, that scandal led to a civil/criminal charge against him, the scandal has merit to be mentioned. This however, doesn't have concrete merit other than the fact that it's big news among the gaming community. I'm going to wait out until the end of this weekend to check whether this news is notable or not. --BirdKr 06:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This news is very notable to Gamespot . . . enough so, that they issued an official statement on the matter: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183603.html

it should be covered now, as events are unfolding . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.219.4 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what I said on Gerstmann's page: I'm wondering why we're protecting Eidos or Gamespot for what they've done. They have commited the biggest controversy in gaming journalism history and deserve to be called out on it. It's not a rumor anymore. Sites like Kotaku and GamePolitics are quoted as reliable sources in other articles, why do the rules not apply here? It's not a WP:BLP issue, because I can't find the part of that policy that says "We don't add factual info that might make major companies cry." Maybe we should add the fact that even though this is supposedly crying over spilt milk, CNET is launching an investigation into this incident? How about the people picketing? How about "Blackout Monday"? None of those things are very important though, but some things are, such as the fact that all Gamespot staff members have added ominous blog entries. But right, Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. ShadowUltra (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First, please be serious when you're trying to reason with us. Saying something like "We don't add factual info that might make major companies cry" isn't helping convey your argument and deep inside you know such statement is false. Second, we're not "protecting" Gamespot or Eidos, just trying to make sure the information is true. From what I've read, there has not been a single official statement nor anyone significant of this issue that confirmed the rumors. These reliable sources that claim to have "confirmed" them are citing "insiders" and anonymous sources. As for these "ominous blog entries" from Gamespot staff members, we can't determine the rumor is true simply because they are "ominous," that's original research. If you didn't know, we are not detectives, we do not pick up scattered information (Blackout Monday1, people picketing2, investigation3) and try to come to a conclusion. The fact is, this rumor has not been confirmed: reliable sources that claim to have confirmed it are using unverifiable sources to say so.
As for articles of other rumors and conspiracy, those articles are notable by them themselves. This rumor however, is not notable by itself. Such is the reason why this controversy does not have an entire article by itself. Had it not been for the notability of Gamespot, this controversy wouldn't be notable to begin with.
1Just because there was information blackout does not confirm the rumor.
2Those people demonstrated over a rumor. Their display does in no way confirm the rumor.
3Please link to a source that says CNET is investigating this incident.
Although I feel there should be a section about this issue, the fact that this rumor is unconfirmed, not notable by itself, and the fact that Wikipedia does not mention gossip despite news coverage, makes me agree with the very few here that this issue should not be mentioned. --BirdKr (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I updated the draft, I'll clean it up tomorrow. I'm going to sleep. --BirdKr (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot confirms they are launching an official investigation here. ShadowUltra (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Read it carefully, they did not say they are launching an official investigation. As for right now, the rumor seems to be false. --BirdKr (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is one of the first steps toward restoring users' faith in GameSpot, and an internal review of the incident and controversy is under way.ShadowUltra (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I know it seems like I'm trying to be "wordy-perfect" here, but isn't review different from investigation? The former being an evaluation, with the latter trying to find a conclusion to a situation/problem. --BirdKr (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


I don't know what you guys are waiting for, but it's been days since Gerstmann was fired and there's still nothing in the article about what happened. Considering how this sparked such huge discussions in the gaming press and among gaming enthusiasts in general, I would have expected someone to include this on Wikipedia by now. It seems like an event worthy of at least a sentence or two. Pele Merengue (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been, what, two , three weeks? There may have been a rash of articles the first week after his firing, but after both Gamespot and CNET stated their piece, the story died. It was newsworth, but not noteworthy w.r.t. to Gamespot; Gerstmann's aritlce includes the information per his firing, but again, that only concludes with Gamespot/CNET's remarks. If there is more, we can consider adding it later, but at the present there's no worthwhile point. --MASEM 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The story has not died. Six weeks on and a number of other staff members have left, with one making this public statement:
"I believe CNet management let Jeff go for all the wrong reasons. I believe CNet intends to soften the site's tone and push for higher scores to make advertisers happy.
I won't lie to people and tell them a game is good when it isn't. I won't downplay negatives that readers have a right to know about."
--Frank Provo, ex-gamespot reveiwer [1]
If this article can contain minutiae such as which reviews have received minor updates then I think we can spare a paragraph about a controversy in which serious doubts were raised about the future credibility of the sites editorial output. I have re-added the fully referenced paragraph about the controversy from Gerstmanns own page as it has relevance to Gamespot as a whole, not just Gerstmann. Please discuss it here before making further changes. Gb drbob (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerstmann-gate needs to be included in the article[edit]

A lot of editors here are concerned about adding any information about Gerstmann's firing from gamespot into the article. This concern seems to be based on the fact that there is no reliable source to tell us why he was fired. However at this point why he was fired is not important. The fact is that the editorial integrity of a significant media outlet (CNET) has been called into question. This is important information for the article regardless of the reason Gerstmann was fired. It could turn out that he was fired for stealing office supplies. But even if that is the case the fact that gamespot.com's (and CNET's) image as a reliable media source is in question. A short summary of the original incident (his firing) needs to be included along with a nod to CNET's denial. But the real important section that needs to be included is a section calling attention to the fact that many people have doubts about gamespot.com's integrity. If these doubts are based on fact or not is not important. The fact that gamespot.com is "only" a video game review site, is not important. It is a media body and should be treated as such. Its intrgrity and percieved integrity in reporting and editorialzing is 100% noteworthy.The Goat (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One source regarding their "editorial integrity" could be a quote from one of the Gamespot staff member, possibly another editor, during their "Hotspot" session shortly after the controversy bloomed who mentioned "people questioning our editorial integrity" or something familiar. --BirdKr (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Dissecting the sources --
1 Source 49 is nothing short of a blog entry, which is generally disallowed under WP:SPS. The following is equally disturbing and poses as more of a rumor than anything: "I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed..."
2 Source 50 is an obvious blog entry, starting with a title that has the word "Rumor." This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill, and per WP:BLP, we need to accurately state only facts -- a non-negotiable policy on WP.
3 Source 51 is a legit source, but details regarding his firing were not revealed due to legalities. Now, if the OP can find a source outside of blogs and rumors to validate the original reason for leaving, that would be acceptable.
Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Seicer, Please reread my statement above. You are still debating the reason behind his firing. We are past that. It doesn't matter anymore. My point is regardless of the reason he was fired, the public image (perceived integrity) of gamespot.com has been significantly impacted by the event. The perceived integrity of a media outlet like gamespot.com and CNET certainly is worthy of being included in the article. If nobody posts a good counter argument to my theory on this in the next 24 hours, I will be adding a section to the article discussing the Gerstmann event and the public reaction.The Goat (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No, after the incident was brought up at WP:WQA, I felt the need to comment. No discussion has been archived or "closed out," therefore it is still open for outside debate. Per WP:SPS and WP:BLP, the mentioned comments (1 and 2) are not acceptable because they are nothing more than rumor mills. Per Jimmy Wales, vios of BLP need to be removed as soon as possible, and this is non-negotable regardless of "consensus." We need reliable third-party sources. You have the burden to prove this. Empty threats of adding it based on perceived indifferences doesn't garner great discussions; if no consensus has been reached -- which has not occurred -- then it should be left open for continued discussion. Adding in the material will only result in further edit warring. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Seicer, you still have not addressed any of my points. I never said a statement definitively saying why Gerstmann was fired should be included. None of us knows the facts behind that. In fact personally I can't form an opinion one way or the other. I never even implied that the discussion was "closed out" or a consensus had been formed. My whole point is the public reaction itself is worthily of inclusion in the article. It is possible to include statements addressing the perceived lack of integrity of CNET without jeopardizing the integrity of the wikipedia article with unfounded statements. Feel free to continue discussing the reason behind Gerstmann's firing until the cows come home. But don't do that in this thread. This thread is about including something about the public's changed perception of a mainstream news organization. Are you disputing the fact (deservedly or not) that public opinion of gamespot.com and CNET has been impacted by these events?208.178.57.242 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No, but unless we can produce reliable sources and stop speculating, then the citations and text cannot stand on their own merit. It would be in gross violation of BLP to let it continue. That's the primary point; it is possible to include statements about the perceived lack of integrity, as long as the sources are reliable (i.e. not blogs). See the discussions below. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Here are some reliable sources, Seicer. [2] You can pick any of them, among the 169 stories. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Because a considerable amount of Google news is filled with blogs, in order to pre-emptively dispute the claim that they're all blog entries, I've compiled a few of the better sources:

Shack News Games Digest Game Daily Monsters and Critics Escapist Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.16.202 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shack News features greater insight although it has speculation over his departure (paragraph 8) and has theories (paragraphs 2 and 3). A general description of his departure can be included with this source as appropriate, but divulging into still-not-for-certain items, such as the _reason_ for his departure, is a bit premature.
Games Digest is a poor source due to inconclusive evidence thus far. The following statement is the primary reason why it's a poor source: "...although they refuse to lay down the facts as to why Gerstmann was fired from his long held position at Gamespot, they do state that “his departure was due purely for internal reasons..."
Game Daily is all speculation.
Monsters and Critics's main issue is with paragraph 2: "...Gerstmann was unceremoniously booted from the ranks of GameSpot after publisher Eidos Interactive reportedly complained..."
Escapist Magazine is probably the best source to use, given that it is brief, does not speculate over his firing reason, although it hints at possible reasons. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased[edit]

It should be noted, Gamespot is much more favorable to the 360 and its on Microsoft's payroll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.231.120 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation for the theory? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The image for the website also has Bias associated with Nintendo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.154.147.133 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot isn't biased they just have horrible consistency problems. Like Assasin's Creed and No More Heroes being 9s but Mass Effect and Rachet and Clank are not? It's not biased, it's just confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woozie (talkcontribs) 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

it's not confusing it's just garbage, the guy who reviewed Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed has absolutely no clue whatsoever about gaming. i still dont understand why they gave him those reviews in the first place, he's somewhat new —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.90.169 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this. Unfortunately, the only citations (if any) is only word of mouth and through blogs. This is also most likely why there isn't a section about how bad the moderators are on that site. the TOU is like the US military's UCMJ. There is one article that can sum up the entire code. Article 92. Failure to Obey a Lawful Order. Basically, it's a universal law that can be interpreted in any way and fashion. GameSpot's TOU basically gives all moderators the power to delete anything at their discretion as well as suspend and ban users for any reason they see fit. This is to include blogging rights on your page (that I'm sure no one reads in the first place) and they track your activities. The mods. Anyway, as satirical as it sounds, the uncyclopedia article on Gamespot really sums it up. Other than that, the only cites we can use is just talk of the users...and you know what that equals to on Wikipedia. --Ryanyomomma (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Navarro Leaving?[edit]

read on kotaku that he will be leaving on the 26th.. it's all in this article.

http://kotaku.com/344073/another-gamespot-reviewer-decides-to-leave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.173.182 (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

yup it's official, go on his blog, this should be added to the jeff section. him leaving and saying it's because of this situation means the CNET defense it's not because of Eidos is complete crap

List of contributors[edit]

We have a list of writers who no longer work at Gamespot, yet we don't have a list of those who do work there. This seems a strange omission. - hahnchen 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's Gamespot[edit]

Gamespot used to have a running video series called Let's Gamespot before the Hotspot and Button Mashing were ever introduced. It seems to me like an important thing to mention since they produced about a hundred of those episodes. Can't find them on the site anymore though. Oh well, can't blame Gamespot for having removed them since the series elaborated on popular video games being released at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.154.228 (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's Gamespot is still on the site, however only the sitemap [3] has links to the episodes.
Gb drbob (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV score change under controversy section?[edit]

I posted something about the GTA IV change under the controversy section yesterday, but it was deleted, stating that it was to trivial. Off course, I'm not going to argue about the deletion itself, but more about the fact wheter or not it was to trivial. I don't think that it was trivial, as it clearly could be linked to a statement which still remains in that section. To be precise "I believe CNET intends to soften the site's tone and push for higher scores to make advertisers happy.". The fact that they suddenly changed the GTA IV score to something higher, might be linked to this statement. What do you guys think? Trivial, or not :-)? -Jort227 (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated Rich Gallup's Profile[edit]

I went ahead and updated Rich Gallup's profile with his mid-job site and the new job he now has. I linked to the about page for doofycrap and his page on Studio 38, both can be found on his Richie G profile page which is still active on Gamespot at the moment. If anyone wants to clean or change the way that information is typed go ahead, I just figured he needed a well deserved update since his name links back to Gamespot... --68.74.221.208 (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing reference[edit]

This line:

"GameSpot.com is currently one of the 200 highest-trafficked websites according to Alexa."

needs a reference. Imsome (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Missing reference[edit]

Now that Jeff Gerstmann has spoken out publicly about his firing, shouldn't there be a section about this on the article here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.166.174 (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kelpek, Patrick (2007-11-30). "Gamespot Fires Editorial Director". 1UP.com. Retrieved 2007-12-02. 
  2. ^ Orland, Kyle (2007-11-30). "Rumor: Gamespot's editorial director fired over Kane & Lynch review". Joystiq. Retrieved 2007-12-02. 
  3. ^ Holkins, Jerry (2007-11-30). "New Games Journalism". Penny Arcade. Retrieved 2007-12-02. 
  4. ^ Blevins, Tal (2007-12-01). "On Advertisements, Critics, and the Week that Was". IGN.com. Retrieved 2007-12-02. 
  5. ^ McElory, Griffin (2007-12-01). "Ziff Davis staff holds impromptu Gamespot rally". Joystiq. Retrieved 2007-12-02. 
  6. ^ Orland, Kyle (2007-11-30). "Gamespot issues short comment on Gerstmann firing". Retrieved 2007-12-02. 
  7. ^ Thomas, Aaron (2007-12-01). "Coming through loud and clear". Retrieved 2007-12-02. 
  8. ^ Orland, Kyle (2007-11-30). "Gamespot denies Eidos pressured firing of Gerstmann". Retrieved 2007-12-02. 
  9. ^ "Gerstmann, GameSpot part ways". 2007-12-04. Retrieved 2007-12-04. 

Italics[edit]

Any objection to switching the title to italics? I'm looking at WP:ITALICS, which says:

Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized

czar  01:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)