Talk:Video game journalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, High-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was a past project collaboration.
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Conflicts of interest"[edit]

"Reviews by 'official' console magazines such as Nintendo Power, Official PlayStation Magazine or the Official Xbox Magazine, all of which have direct financial ties to their respective platform holders, usually find themselves in similar positions."

These three magazines, all of which are published by Future US, do not have any financial ties to speak of other than NP, PTOM and OXM paying their respective companies for the right to say that they're the "official" magazines, and OXM and PTOM for the disc-licensing fee for the packed-in disc. They are never under any circumstances paid by Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. Aeshir Aurion (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 1 August 2010‎ (UTC)

Publications of Note[edit]

Are the publications listed here are really credible and worthy to be mentioned here? Plus didn't GamePro, PSMagazine and XboxMagazine shut down already? I mean they are no longer publishing issues. Just like 1UP and GameSpy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Latik (talkcontribs) 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Latik (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
You may wish to ask those questions at the reliable sources noticeboard, or gain a consensus here, with people who edit the article. --I dream of horses (T) @ 05:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I gain a consensus? Cause I hope someone like an editor can see this post on the talk page and address this concern. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you gain a consensus through the talk page. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Consensus was reached at WP:VG's talk page (here) to remove this embedded list. I intend to do it if I ever get around to cleaning up this article, but anyone else can feel free to remove the list if they feel up to the task earlier than I. -Thibbs (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are "tabloids"?[edit]

I don't think the rather derogatory term "tabloid" should be applied to Joystiq, Kotaku, and Destructoid in the "Blogs" section of publications of note. The source never uses the word, only mentions two of the three sites, and is quite dated besides (from 2007). The denotation of 'blog' as distinct from 'online' is also confusing. From what I can tell the informal style of these blogs is being confused for poor quality. If anything they are good examples for New Games Journalism. I'll make a small change for now -- hopefully we can get a conversation going about it. MukashiEcho (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There have long been concerns about these blogs' professionalism, or rather the lack thereof, especially Kotaku's. I'll see what sources I can find that discuss this topic. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously though[edit]

I think this article should mention that professional video game reviewers are a joke and no one takes them seriously. The "Ethics" section seems like it was heavily padded to make reviewers look better than they are, especially the ridiculous section on "experiential reviews," which is total OR with no references and which I have deleted accordingly. (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to take issue with your blanket statement, granted it's been a good six months since it was posted. There are good pro reviewers out there that people take seriously. Not a lot but some to be sure. Do you not consider someone like Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw a pro reviewer? Besides if it's as bad as you claim then do something about it. Start your own review publication and prove how "pro" you are and shame all those non-pro's out of work.BcRIPster (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Even Yahtzee doesn't take himself seriously. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Reorganise references[edit]

I've noticed that the references are getting to be a bit much. They should be changed to \<\ref names\>\ and the bulk of the tags moved to the bottom of the page, much like has been done on the Gamergate page. It makes editing much easier. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not familiar with how to do it. Could somebody help, or at least tell me how to do what I'm proposing? Willhesucceed (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Publications of note: Niche and Forum?[edit]

I'm wondering if popular but (relatively) niche websites like RockPaperShotgun deserve their own section. Also, certain fora like NeoGAF and SomethingAwful are places where journalists like to occasionally hang, and are also popular sources for gaming news. Do they maybe deserve mentioning here? Willhesucceed (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Falsely accused"[edit]

I see no justification to assert as fact that the Quinn/Grayson accusation was false. We have a reference that says "no compelling evidence", and we have other references that express an opinion. - Khendon (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a false accusation when there's no compelling evidence to support it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
What? No, that's not how evidence works. It's an unproven accusation when there's no compelling evidence to support it; it becomes a false accusation when there's compelling evidence to refute it. - 08:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
That makes no sense. If there's nothing to support it then it's false.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The accusations are objectively, provably false; Grayson did not write any articles about Quinn after beginning the relationship and never reviewed Depression Quest for any outlet. There can't be a "conflict of interest" where there was no interest to be conflicted. No one on the other side has even attempted to explain how it can be otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Just as a thought, would it be worth pulling all of the discussion about Anita from the GamerGate section? It was the birth of GamerGate, but as the allegations were completely disproved, it is a non-issue in terms of journalistic ethics. We could cut it back to something like:
The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014, and encompassed a variety of issues and allegations in game journalism, including ethics and alleged censorship. As a result of the discussion, several gaming media and press sites amended their disclosure and conflict of interest policies.
It might be putting GamerGate in a bit more positive a light, but it same time it avoids repeating disproven allegations about Quinn All that background is provided by the Gamergate article. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it due to the fact that it's a violation of WP:NPOV to state in Wikipedia's voice that something is 'false', untrue, true, or the like. Besides, the sentence right after it already discredits it. It's the same reason we can't state that Communism is a bad system on its Wikipedia page, because that's not NPOV. Also, the relevant policy is WP:IMPARTIAL. Tutelary (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
And I've reinstated it. Whether or not Communism is bad is a matter of opinion, debated by reliable sources. It is an objective fact that the allegations against Quinn and Grayson were false, and multiple reliable sources have reported them as such. NPOV does not prohibit us from stating that things which are false are false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for disputes to happen. We, again, cannot describe anything as false, true, or the like without showing bias. NPOV means that we are not to show bias, even when there are indefinite amount of evidence to describe something like that. We are not to show bias at all. Per WP:IMPARTIAL, from NPOV a policy, says The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. We cannot reject the accusations as 'false'. We have to describe them, and say that X or Y sources described it as false. That's what we can do, and that would not be in violation of NPOV. But you can't say 'false accusations' because that's a breach of NPOV. Tutelary (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You completely misunderstand NPOV. The idea that the allegations are not false is a fringe theory deserving of zero space in this encyclopedia. We are not required to give space or credence to fringe theories which have been widely rejected in mainstream sources. While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are no reliable sources which give any credence to the claim that these allegations were anything other than false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
NPOV; a neutral point of view. Just reading that phrase, and saying that 'Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral'. Then you read 'the accusations were false'. That's stating in Wikipedia's voice and taking a stand, a bias in favor of stating that they are false. Also, citing a due weight guideline when you're wanting to claim that the accusations were false and not even answering about WP:IMPARTIAL--which I'm not even disputing that they were false, we can't state that in Wikipedia's voice. Why are you so insistent on this, btw? I've seen you edit war on this on GamerGate, as well. I also think that in its current form of the sentences, it's a double negative and may infer that the accusations were true. Tutelary (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
"a bias in favor of stating that they are false"
Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the accusations, and that what evidence there is available shows that they are very likely false? Why would it be a "bias" to state that they are false? The alternative would be to not describe the accusations at all because an article cannot be used to post suggestions that some dirt may stick. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Because WP:NPOV mandates that articles are to remain neutral, not expressing one view as right or the other as wrong, and in terms of a dispute, describing the dispute and not just saying that one side of the dispute was wrong or right. That's what NPOV demands and obligates. We don't say 'Flat Earthers are plain wrong' (even though they are). We say 'Flat Earthers is an ancient belief that the Earth was flat which has now been discredited by modern science' or some variant. We don't state that 'The accusations of X are false'. We say that 'The accusations of X are Y, however, da da da' and background context. The article already stated this earlier with 'false' removed. This led to accusations of her receiving positive press for her Depression Quest game in exchange, however Grayson did not write about Quinn after beginning the relationship and never reviewed Depression Quest. That is NPOV compliant. There's no need to have a 'false' lodged in there, it already purposefully states that Grayson never reviewed Depression quest and inherently says as a result that the accusations are false. We don't -need- to have 'false accusations' written anywhere in that sentence. That's appropriately describing the dispute. And regardless of how widespread or how untrue something is, we -cannot- give bias to one or the other by means of biasing words. 'False' or 'true' or 'untrue' or the like. Tutelary (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong. See the very first words of Duke lacrosse case: The Duke lacrosse case was a 2006 criminal case resulting from what proved to be a false accusation of rape... See that word false? It's used. We use it where reliable sources do.
A false accusation of rape is in a different context in which the main known form of an untrue claim of rape is just that--a false accusation of rape. That's the pair of words that it's known by, and it's not appreciated that you are trying to find that one counterexample and attempt to say that 'hey, see, this article uses the word false SO WE CAN too'. Not appreciated. Tutelary (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your response is word salad. What does that first sentence even argue? If the "main known form of an untrue claim of rape is just that--a false accusation of rape", then obviously the main known form of an untrue claim of a conflict of interest would be "a false allegation of a conflict of interest," right? Which is basically what we say.
You said that neutrality means we can't use words such as "false." I provided a concrete example where we do use the word "false." The fact is that the allegations against Quinn and Grayson are false. You can keep arguing until the cows come home, but the word stays in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
That's the title and the common name of the subject of that kind of rape. Just like the wording 'False Dichotomy'. We do use 'false' in that context, because that's the common name and what those pairing of the words mean. And, the fact that the allegation are false is not even disputed by myself. I'm completely in you and John's ballbark that they are in completely false. But we can't take sides on the article, and 'This led to false accusations' is plainly taking a side in Wikipedia's voice and is simply not permitted per WP:NPOV. The fact that you consider yourself so strongly as to plainly take no compromise at all is very telling. Tutelary (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't even know what to say, because that makes literally no sense. You're arguing that we can call a false thing false, but not this false thing, because reasons. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
We either describe these allegations as false or we don't include them at all, per WP:FRINGE. They are disproven allegations made only by a fringe of random anonymous people on the Internet and objectively, provably false based on available evidence and based on the descriptions of the allegations in reliable sources. If you'd prefer that the whole thing be removed entirely, just say so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
False dichotomy, and it's a bit concerning when you're linking to WP:FRINGE when we're talking about WP:NPOV. The sentence is biased because it's spouting bias that the accusations were false; assertively too, without any attribution. Should you want to use those sources you were talking about and attribute them, that would also be not a violation of NPOV, but the way that you do it must be considered as well. In any case, saying that any one accusation was false even though RS say that, without attribution is a violation of NPOV. Tutelary (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your claim that it is "bias" to state that the accusations are false is laughable and displays a complete misapprehension of the word. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, it's a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL to state in Wikipedia's voice that the accusations are false, plainly due to the effect that it has on the sentence. It's taking a side, which is not what the article should do. Tutelary (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
So what should the article say? Do you think it should just say that there are accusations of X (where X is a very bad thing that named people are said to have done)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sentence structure and grammar[edit]

Our article currently states that Eron Gjoni made accusations that Zoe Quinn cheated on him. It does not state that Gjoni had anything to do with the allegations of unethical behavior, and that has been clarified by the addition of "others" to that section. If you think the section needs to be rewritten to make that clearer, let's do that. But writing that "however neither Grayson nor Zoe's boyrfriend did not write about Quinn after beginning the relationship and never reviewed Depression Quest" is not only horridly ungrammatical, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's injecting information about Gjoni in a sentence that is discussing Grayson, and therefore confuses the reader (no one has ever argued that Gjoni reviewed Depression Quest). Please discuss rather than edit-war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I note that the IP has refused to engage in meaningful discussion and is continuing to edit-war, now attempting to rewrite the article against the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources and create the impression that the claims about Quinn and Grayson are meaningful, when they have been widely determined to be false and specious. I will continue to remove such allegations, as it is well-documented that Grayson has never reviewed Depression Quest and Gjoni's own timeline establishes when the relationship began. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Publications of Note is a Mess[edit]

This section is very outdated and confusing.

  • Giant Bomb is not a news site, they have 1 news editor and mostly just make entertaining videos.
  • Polygon is one of the largest news sites and its not listed.
  • GameFAQs is the 2nd largest video game site on the internet IIRC, it should be listed under strat guides.
  • Too many obscure magazines to be "of note" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeCakee (talkcontribs) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to update it, but I don't want to put time into it only to have someone else come in and say no.

--TheeCakee (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you find secondary sources that say this? Otherwise we're relying on your original research. Try a video game reliable sources custom Google search. – czar 22:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The whole section seems to be OR. I suggest dumping the descriptions and categorization. Rhoark (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree, some of those descriptors seem really promotional in tone as well. I'd vote for just deleting the whole section and leaving a link in See also to a list of publications. — Strongjam (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed the section as unsourced. If any reliable sources can suggest a list of "publications of note", we can rebuild it around that. Until then, it's just original research. Woodroar (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


User:Khendon removed the word, replacing it with simpler words that carry the time distinction, here. However the important point is that at a given time they went back and tagged the affected articles, as they should have been tagged in the first place, not that they suddenly did a bunch of disclosure about stuff which was already known. If time permits I may tweak this wording. "Retrospective" is maybe a better word than "retroactivly". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

Agree "retrospective" would work. "Retroactive" means taking effect from a date in the past, which I don't think is the intended sense here. - Khendon (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)