From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Post-launch" edits[edit]

There appears to have been a good deal of editing out of some of the critical analysis from Digital Foundry, and instead some cherry-picking of quotes pasted in instead, making it look more like a press release than an encyclopedic or in-depth look of the actual details or the pros and cons of the final product. As such, I've edited to attempt to cover all points raised by Digital Foundry. The paragraphs as they now stand are basically a summary of each page of the full and final article, and if there's any noticeable difference between the paragraphs as they stand and what the DigitalFoundry article says, then we should discuss it here rather than, as appears to have happened already, genuine review and criticism being wiped from the article and replaced with quote blocks that seem to leave out key chunks of quote (e.g "the potential is quite startling" actually refers to CryTek's rendering process). If we can get some other mainstream reviews out there to see how they stack up the issues DigitalFoundry raises - perhaps some that fall on the other side of the fence when it comes to lag or image quality, for instance - then that can only help with the balance aspect. Thanks. (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital Foundry is Inappropriate as a Wikipedia Reference[edit]

Digital Foundry is inappropriate as a Wikipedia reference, either as a positive or a negative source, for a wide range of reasons, including WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:REDFLAG, WP:PRIMARY. The two cited Digital Foundry articles self-admittedly directly contradict each other, to the point where one is called "Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work" while the other grudgingly acknowledges that OnLive does work, and then attempts to intermix what it represents as a technical and business assessment intermixed with largely negative commentary.

The articles are highly biased and contain extreme views from non-verifiable sources that are not supported by the preponderance of other sources, and are anything but scholarly. For example, the first article's flawed "technical" assessment included commentary from an anonymous video "expert" the author claims to have developed YouTube HD video technology, whose statements about OnLive's technology include "'Bulls***' and 'Hahahahaha!'".[1]

The articles read like WP:SPS self-published works, including wistful self-referential remarks from the author like "Perhaps it is simply the case that OnLive isn't for us committed gamer types."[2]

We need to bring this Digital Foundry WP:EW to an end and just remove Digital Foundry as a reference. There are hundreds of quality references for OnLive available that are far less biased, are self-consistent, and are based on verifiable sources. Let's build the OnLive article from quality material going forward.

Createk (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll cut things short here: Are you User:Tranzent? --Conti| 08:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
While you may not agree with their assessment personally, as Digital Foundry falls under the Eurogamer umbrella, it is a reliable source under the guidelines of the video games Wikiproject. Let's have a look at some of these hundreds of sources you have, and see if we can maintain balance: the last thing we want is to have it revert to the previous state by glossing over any weak points, in favour of advertisment-quality positive quote mining. SynergyBlades (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, user "Tranzent"'s suggestion to Seraphimblade on his talk page that "we limit DigitalFoundry's contributions to making the point about how the most extreme critics had to acknowledge they were impressed when the product was released" is a pretty clear statement of intent to make the release section non-neutral by ignoring the five-page coverage of the issues DF highlighted. SynergyBlades (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
(New contributor to Wikipedia. apologies if this is improper comment, but something needs to be said here.) My field is video compression, not video games, but everyone in the video compression field is watching onlive closely because it is trying something new. When I saw the back and forth about these DigitalFoundry/Eurogamer articles, it prompted me to read the full articles. These are articles are neither truthful, technically sophisticated, nor accurate.
First, they contain provably false information. For example, the first article says that they consulted an expert who developed YouTube's HD video compression technology. It is widely known that YouTube uses Adobe Flash for its HD video compression technology. YouTube did not develop the technology themselves, so there was no such expert. And, no one would identify the people who worked on the tech at Adobe as "YouTube" HD video compression experts. In fact, the relevant expert you'd consult to assess a new compression tech like onlive would be someone who worked on the H.264 standard that Adobe didn't develop, but rather adopted for Flash HD, to supplant their prior tech that was limited to SD. So, the first article is written by an individual so naive about the field of video compression that he fabricated an expert and then gave him credentials from a famous video distribution site with a large catalogue, that doesn't have video compression experts.
Second, the methodology and criteria they used in the second article for assessing the video compression quality and latency are neither reliable nor objective, nor are they presented in a a scholarly or balanced manner. Video compression has well established objective metrics like PSNR that would be applied in side-by-side analysis, or used to compare successive still frames. Also, in their latency analysis, they acknowledge that different console games have dramatically different latencies, but then attribute all of the latency to the onlive video compression algorithm when criticising onlive. If they know what the video game's inherent latency is (which they claim to have tested) it should be subtracted from the measured latency to determine what onlive's compression and network latency is. For example they say that onlive is only slightly higher latency than a console. If that is indeed the case (and there is no reason to believe anything written in this article) then onlive's compression and network latency must be next to nil. Instead of reporting this, they make rhetorical attacks against onlive, attributing the total latency entirely to onlive. No one with any knowledge of video compression would make such an unsophisticated analysis, particularly with such damning conclusions laced with rhetoric.
You have argued here that DigitalFoundry is a reliable source because it is under the Eurogamer umbrella. There is no question that these are deliberately fabricated articles laced with false results, written in a highly defamatory manner by individuals with at best lay knowledge of video compression technology. Even if we consider Eurogamer to be a "reliable" source generally, we most certainly cannot consider these particular articles to be reliable sources. Even the New York Times has had incidents when journalists have fabricated articles, which they later retracted. Whilst the New York Times is considered a "reliable" source, surely Wikipedia would not consider provably fabricated New York Times articles to be reliable.
I do not know what authority to turn to in Wikipedia to permanently remove these references from the onlive article and all other places they are used. I presume there is a way to search for fabricated references throughout Wikipedia to remove them. Frankly, I'm surprised articles laced with such foul-mouthed rhetoric are even considered as technical references and there are people defending them as such. Does anyone know if there is an oversight committee to which this matter can be raised?
Thank you.
Vidcrafter (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no such "authority" whatsoever, nor is there any acceptable reason to do so. The standard is verifiability, period. Your personal opinion, no matter how well it may be spoken, is original research, and so would be unacceptable for use in the article in any way. We do have a reliable sources noticeboard, that we can use to evaluate the validity of a source for a given topic, but it is not intended to express "disagreement" with a normally reliable source in any given case. We don't do that, we don't editorialize. Now if there are other sources which disagree with this one, and say what you say, we should express in the article that there is disagreement on the point. But we should never use our own judgment to shape the factual content of an article, only summarize what reliable sources have had to say. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Conti: No.
Synergy/SeraphimBlades: The reliable sources noticeboard recommends that disputes about the reliability of a source be first directed to the applicable Wikiproject. So, I posted to talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources what I felt were undisputed background facts, followed by my views on why the particular two Eurogamer DigitalFoundry articles are neither appropriate nor reliable sources for the OnLive article, despite they fact that Eurogamer in general is deemed a reliable source by the Videogames Wikiproject. Please add your views to the Discussion page, and let's get this matter resolved.
Per Synergy's suggestion, I would like to help expand the article by dipping in the vast number of available sources on OnLive (both positive and negative), but right now content sourced from DigitalFoundry articles dominates the OnLive article, and until this dispute is resolved, there is little point in adding further content.
Vidcrafter: I don't agree with SeraphimBlade that verifiability is the only standard for Wikipedia sources. Verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient, threshold that needs to be met. It is just one of many pages on sources. If you read through some of the policy links I've listed (they start with WP:), or my comments on the WikiProject Video games/Sources talk page, you'll see where I make extensive references to these policy pages and the requirements they list beyond verifiability. Of course, well-meaning people don't always agree, which is what is happening here. But, rest assured you are not the only person outraged that that self-contradictory, defamatory articles based on fabricated information have been elevated to status of "reliable" sources.
Createk (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
If you've got more sources, that's never a problem. If you could post those here, would be most helpful. Far as your other suggestion, I'm reluctant to work with Wikiprojects, as many of them are partisan and see little activity, and many current-media type ones are made up of very fannish types. There are a few exceptions (MILHIST, etc.), but they're few and far between. So let's use the appropriate area for it, being RSN, and not splatter the discussion five different places. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed the DigitalFoundry articles more closely with an eye toward deliberate fabrication, and I've listed another technically false assertion below that the articles use for personal attacks. I retract my previous suggestion of using the DigitalFoundry articles to illustrate how even the most harsh pre-launch skeptics acknowledged they were wrong. Several of the statements in these articles, while written to appear to be based on deep technical know-how, actually reflect complete lack of understanding of the technology, and were clearly fabricated purely to undermine OnLive's credibility and to attack individuals at OnLive.
Also, I disagree with SynergyBlade that an editor making a technical argument that a technical reference is bogus constitutes "original research". Under WP:BOP, in boldface it is emphasized that the burden of proof to support the verifiability of a source is the responsibility of the editor adding or restoring the material, not one who challenges it and removes it. This is especially the case for WP:PRIMARY sources making "exceptional claims" and attacking living persons. Saying that because the parent publication, Eurogamer, is decreed a "reliable source" for video games, says nothing about it being a reliable source for video compression technology, or for that matter, an emerging video game technology such as cloud gaming. At the bottom of the WP:SOURCES page is a "See Also" link to the Argument from authority page, which points out that the reliability of a source in one field of expertise says nothing about the source's reliability in another.
In addition to the OnLive article, I've removed material I've placed in another article that referenced one of these articles and another Eurogamer article unrelated to OnLive, because the other Eurogamer article is also WP:PRIMARY, and given what we now know about these similar articles, is highly questionable as to its accuracy.
Also, while I don't want to continue an WP:EW edit war, but I was one of the contributors (and proponents) of the DigitalFoundry material to the OnLive page, and but now I know there is no question that these articles contain fabricated information, are highly biased and unjustifiably attack living persons, so I have deleted the material under WP:BOP. The editors who have been restoring the material back have demanded supporting sources for why the articles should be removed. I disagree. The WP:BOP burden of proof rests on editors who either originally added the material or restored it. THEY need to find secondary sources that not only support the WP:PRIMARY claims and exceptional claims that these articles make, but also they need to show why these articles, given the expletives and defamatory remarks are preferable sources over whatever secondary sources they find.
Videocrafter listed some provably false information and information showing the author (and his anonymous "expert") are clearly not knowledgeable about video compression. Here is yet another example, involving personal attacks. I found other more technical ones, but frankly, we've more than demonstrated that these articles should not be sources for Wikipedia, and their removal is long overdue.
The "Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work" article states that because OnLive claims only 1ms of latency in video compression, that implies an impossibly fast frame rate of 1000 frames/second (fps) (1/1ms). This is false. Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of video compression technology would know that latency and frame rate are unrelated. For example, conventional video compression might have 500ms of latency and run at 60 fps (1/16.7ms), not 2 fps (1/500ms). The articles use this latency techno-babble is to personally attack OnLive's CEO.
Lastly, if you look back to the top of this Talk page, you can see that these sources have been controversial from the outset, yet there has been hardly any debate over other sources. Clearly, there are other non-controversial sources out there. Let's get rid of these and use other sources.
Tranzent (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's not beat around it here. All of the "three" posting here so far have very similar speech styles, timing, and arguments. I'm not sure if all these accounts are operated by one person, or this is a coordinated campaign. Either is unacceptable. I'll presume you might not have known that, but please pick only one account with which to continue the discussion. After that, we can have a productive one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This clearly seems to stem more from a "bashing of OnLive" viewpoint. I can understand that, however all three sources are perfectly viable, and were correct in their sourcing at the time. What I would suggest are counter-points in the article that are well sourced from other reliable sources, thus providing a neutral point of view. The criticism of OnLive is not limited to a few sites, so removing them would flip the point of view the other way. The only way to resolve the issue is to balance it with counterpoints from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Does this exist?[edit]

In the Las Vegas, NV, area, OnLive is a "phantom console". (Yes, there's a pun in there.) Like the L600 about a decade ago, a claimed release, and yet nothing area. I looked at this article, searched the Internet, and then yet to about 10 to 15 video-games stores in the Las Vegas, NV, area. Most people never even heard of it at these stores. Apple8800 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. Read the article and the citations for details.--wikial (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is spamming links for this crappy service on dozens of wikipedia game pages needs to quit it. CaelumArisen (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if it is a way to play the game then it should be on the page, shouldn't it? (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument. If there is a way to write an essay, should we list every tool (pen/pencil/quill/crayon/etc.) that it can be written with? Unless games are OnLive exclusive or their release is premièred on OnLive, there is no real reason to list it (just as any other distributor or gaming-on-demand service). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
yes, but that comparision wasn't quite accurate. It's more like listing the console's it's available on. since the OnLive version of the games are specifically coded for onlive. (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a relatively lengthy discussion below about whether or not OnLive qualifies as a platform and what sort of platform that would be. If you wish to discuss the matter further, do it there instead. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OnLive Platform[edit]

Anonymous users (most recently it appears to be from,, and appeared to violate Wikipedia: Neutral point of view by removing citations and the word "platform" with only opinion as support. As can be seen from citations, the machines and their related operating systems that run the games and applications are only part of the OnLive platform.--wikial (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two things to note. One, all of the citations in question are OnLive press releases. I don't think it matters one way or the other that OnLive considers or describes its service as a platform. If you could add reliable sources that aren't based around press releases, I think that would improve the article. Two, a lot of WP editors, a majority it would appear, don't think OnLive qualifies as a platform. But I think that discussion is better suited for WT:VG. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback regarding improving the article. Not all of the citations in question were OnLive press releases. I added another that is also not an OnLive press release. Can you explain the second item you mentioned and how it might be relevant to the article? I don't see anything about this topic on the referenced page. I think it would be against WP:NPOV to attempt to provide citation of editor consensus, but perhaps I misunderstood you.--wikial (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
See [1] for a discussion on whether or not OnLive is a platform. The consensus was that it's not and this has been the basis for removing OnLive from the list of platforms in the video game infobox. Personally, I think the line between content delivery and platform is blurring and that the distinction is becoming less relevant. In any case, it's a topic best discussed on WT:VG. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the self-referential sources - as has been pointed out, we really need third-party sources, not those found on OnLive's own site. I have also removed the g4tv reference as the only mention of "platform" is a quote from OnLive's founder, and as such this is not a third-party description. That leaves the Tom's Hardware reference, which mentions it as a "potential platform" initially but a "platform" later on - much better.
Lastly, though I'm fairly sure it doesn't contravene any Wikipedia guidelines, I think it prudent and fair to mention that user Wikial works for OnLive, should any future edits cause any conflict of interest to occur. (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I added citations from Macworld, Wired,, and Forbes.--wikial (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Again made the same edit to this cited information with no support. I would appreciate any editors helping with this situation. This anonymous user is violating Wikipedia policy.--wikial (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous user from appeared to violate Wikipedia: Neutral point of view by removing citations and the word "platform" with only opinion as support. As can be seen from citations, the machines and their related operating systems that run the games and applications are only part of the OnLive platform.--wikial (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not violating any such policy. I am correcting your bad/misleading information about Onlive. Again, it doesn't matter how many websites (third-party, or otherwise) say that Onlive is a platform. It doesn't change the fact that it's not. The games are executed on Windows, and the games are viewed/experienced on Mac OS X and Windows. There are no Onlive machines. There is no Onlive OS. You are the inappropriate editor, wikial, not me.
As per the cited Wikipedia policies, what matters for Wikipedia is the citations and verifiability.--wikial (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Citations are needed to help verify unknown information. In this case, it is known that Onlive is not a platform. The citations provided are meaningless, because they are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC) (talk), I see your statement, but I don't see any support for it. Please follow the no original research policy.--wikial (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've opened a similar discussion here. What we need to be careful with is lumping the service and the device together. One streams to multiple outlets, the other is a game console that utilizes that service. --Teancum (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived here. My takeaway from the discussion is that we take for granted that we know what a video game platform is, but that this is a mistake. The status quo is to equate video game platform with computing platform, but this is done without reliable sources and may not adequately reflect reality. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this a hypothetical issue or is there an actual piece of info in the article you are questioning? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh neither, I don't think. I'm talking about a real issue that goes far beyond this article. Specifically, we don't have a definitive definition of video game platform that's well supported by reliable sources. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes of verifiability, OnLive is a "platform" -- this claim is supported by at least 5 sources. These citations are reliable and even if some editors may wish to question the source validity, WP:V is clear that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So, yes, OnLive is called a "platform". On the other hand, I looked at them all, and they all call it a "platform" of various interpretations. None are specific that this is a "computing platform", which is what the article at its present form implies. Basically, the link to computing platform is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We should remove the link (to avoid OR), but not the word itself (to follow unbiased WP:V). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OnLive games still run on Windows thus are exactly the same as their disc and digitally downloaded counterparts, so OnLive is no more of a platform than for example Steam and we don't list Steam in the platforms section (or at the top section or articles like some games that are on OnLive have) and therefore OnLive shouldn't be treated any differently. Phrix89 (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OnLive is a platform, the only question is what kind of platform. It's clearly not JUST a channel for digital distribution like Steam. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's exactly like Steam, just because you can use it on a tv or mobile phone it doesn't change the fact the games still run on standard PC hardware, a Windows OS and share the exact same code as disc and digitally downloaded PC games. Phrix89 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Your rationale is incomplete. How can you assert that something isn't a video game platform if you don't have a solid definition of what a video game platform is? See above. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Because while OnLive may be classed as a platform it is not a platform in the same sense as the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC/Windows are because as with Steam, Origin and so on OnLive games run on a Windows OS, use standard PC hardware and are the same code so they are all just storefronts for the PC/Windows platform. Phrix89 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a whole lot of WP:OR. The community has never had a serious discussion about what a video game platform is and what a video game platform can be and there's no getting around that. Reliable sources appear to be silent on the issue as well. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Onlive game are not exactly like steam. Onlive games are ported to Onlive using custom graphics for control input and needing hooks for brag clips and spectating. Also it's needs to be programmed to use the Onlive Dashboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Right so Steamworks, Origin and Games for Windows Live are platforms as well then? All their games have to be 'programmed' to use their dashboards/overlays just like OnLive. Bottom line is none of them are platforms, they're just services/storefronts that deliver PC games. Also OnLive doesn't have custom graphics they're exactly the same graphics options as the normal PC versions of the games, just that on OnLive they can't be changed by users. As for the brag clips it's just a recording feature and that does not make OnLive a platform otherwise services like Xfire would be a platform as well. Phrix89 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Too much like an advertisement[edit]

In my opinion, the introduction section is written entirely too much like an advertisement. I'm all but certain it was written by an employee of OnLive. I suggest that it be re-written to give a more neutral outlook on the system. (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what parts you take issue with? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

missing See Also section[edit]

A See Also section really is needed to help balance this contribution G. Robert Shiplett 14:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What links would you place there taking WP:SEEALSO into account? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On 17 August 2012 the company reportedly laid off a large number of its employees before being acquired by an undisclosed company.[[edit]

Lots of people are saying Apple bought OnLive. Can anyone confirm this? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

OnLive sold to Lauder Partners[edit]

It was reported yesterday that OnLive has been sold for $4.8 Million, In debt $18.7 Million (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Onlive service for Xbox games ?[edit]

Appearantly, a Onlive service was once considered for distributing Xbox 720 games. See here

I think it's probably a good idea to distribute older games via such a service aswell. Ie regular Xbox and Xbox 360 games could be distributed via the internet (from a central server). Distribution could happen using .iso format, and could be played on a regular xbox/xbox 360, or a regular computer (the latter could also play games of other consoles; hence acting as an emulator) (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What happened to OnLive Desktop Pro?[edit]

The pro service will supposedly allow you to install your own software. It was supposed to be out over a year ago.

What happened? Was it cancelled? Their website says it's coming soon. Define "soon". OnLive refuses to answer or acknowledge questions asked on Facebook or email to their website. I think it's a scam. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Cited article is dubious source[edit]

The article "OnLive lost: how the paradise of streaming games was undone by one man's ego", published by The Verge on August 28, 2012 and written by Sean Hollister is the subject of a libel lawsuit in the Court of Chancery in Delaware. It is Civil Action No.: 10046-VCP, available through the web. I found many objective falsehoods cited in the case including a doctored stock certificate, but independent of these falsehoods, the writer affirmatively refused to do fact checking, which fails to meet basic journalism standards. Here are 3 paragraphs from the case:

46. On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Mr. Hollister emailed Jane Anderson, the Public Relations Director at OL2, to inform her that The Verge would be publishing a new, apparently scandalous article targeting Mr. Perlman and OnLive—the August 28 Article—and that the editors at The Verge had decided not to go through any kind of fact-checking process before the publication of that article. Mr. Hollister’s email reads as follows:


Just wanted to give you a heads up that we’re going to be running with a report that I don’t think you’ll like very much...

I originally wanted to reach out to you and go through a process and maybe get some of Steve’s perspective (which I’d still like, honestly!) but the team decided I’d done enough interviewing already and that the story was getting away from me.

I just don’t want you to read this and have an aneurysm or anything! You’re far too nice for that!


47. Ms. Anderson immediately attempted to reach Mr. Hollister by phone and email in an attempt to fact check the August 28 Article and address any inaccuracies contained therein. At 1:12 PM on August 28, 2012, Ms. Anderson replied to Mr. Hollister’s above email with the following:

“Sean if it is accurate it is fine – that is the only thing I want to check before it is posted (and it takes 11 hours to fix).

So can you fact check off the record?

I left my cell phone at home, so can I call you?”

48. Mr. Hollister ignored Ms. Anderson’s offer to fact check the August 28 Article and did not respond to Jane Anderson, when she was reachable. After the August 28 Article was published, the editors at The Verge refused to consider Ms. Anderson’s efforts to fact check the article. Failing to convince The Verge to fact check the August 28 Article, Ms. Anderson’s only option thereafter, continuing through 2014, has been to try to convince other publications linking to the August 28 Article to do their own fact checking, and upon verifying the August 28 Article is false, to remove links to it.

49. Defendant’s decision to affirmatively avoid any attempt to fact check the August 28 Article is in clear contravention of generally accepted standards of journalism, which anticipate that any reputable publisher will contact the subject of an article before publication to allow the subject the opportunity to corroborate, refute, or comment on the facts asserted therein. Defendant’s affirmative decision not to contact plaintiffs demonstrates a reckless disregard for and, indeed, a “purposeful avoidance of the truth.” See Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 692 (1989) (in which the United States Supreme Court counseled a media publisher against “purposeful avoidance of the truth” in part for its failure to contact a “key witness” who could corroborate or refute defendant’s source). Starkcasted (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it is that you just posted does not mean the source should be removed. The mere fact that someone disputes the accuracy of the article is not sufficient to conclude that the article is in fact not credible. Furthermore, the article is only being used here as a source for one purpose: to show that "on August 17, 2012 the company laid off all of its employees." – Zntrip 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Zntrip, don't agree the article is credible. Columbia School of Journalism just reviewed a Rolling Stone article and no fact checking was cited as journalistic failure for article credibility, whether the end result was true or false. Here the author is bragging about the fact he is refusing to fact check. No fact checking, it's not credible journalism.

Second this article is one of two footnotes to this brief sentence, "on August 17, 2012 the company laid off all of its employees.". The original footnote has been there since August 22, 2012 (when you yourself were editing and obviously felt it was adequate), and is a "to the point" article dated August 17, 2012. This other footnote is an epic article dated August 28, 2012 that mentions the layoffs briefly. Someone added it as a second footnote in October 2014. If you feel a second footnote to confirm this brief sentence is absolutely essential, why don't we select among the dozens of articles confirming there were layoffs on August 17, 2012 which are to the point, aren't the subject of a libel lawsuit, and whose author doesn't gloat over refusing to fact check. Starkcasted (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please start a new discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? I think that will be the best place to talk about this issue. – Zntrip 23:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Starkcasted: Please let us know when and if this article is removed, recanted, amended or otherwise changed, and we will gladly remove it if merited. In the meantime, the source is reliable and you not liking it or providing unverifiable information is not enough to challenge it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
As suggested by Zntrip, I started a new discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sorry, I thought this was a no-brainer undo for a secondary link. Would not have bothered if I had known there would be so much push back. It's not a like/dislike issue, just whether it's a credible source given the information available today and/or whether a better source can be found. The article is a engaging read, but I think of it like Stephen Glass articles, which are also engaging reads, but not credible citations. Starkcasted (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)