Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This talk page is for discussing the reliability of sources for use in video game articles. If you are wondering if a video game source is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia, this is the place to ask.

When posting a new topic, please add a link to the topic on the Video Game Sources Checklist after the entry for the site. If an entry for the site does not exist, create one for it and include the link to the topic afterward. Also, begin each topic by adding {{subst:find video game sources|...site name...|linksearch=...site URL...}} in order to provide other users with some easily accessible links to check up on the source.

WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Guidelines
Manual of Style talk
  Article naming talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
  Online print archive
  Sales charts
  Website archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Popular pages
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles

viewtalkeditchanges


4 sources discussion: Cubed3, Gaming Age, Digitally Downloaded and Select Button[edit]

Opened this because of the Talk:Arc System Works#Proposed merge with Othello (2009 video game) and I think it is finally time to decide where Digitally Downloaded falls in, and to expand on the words of Czar (pinging as well to join) "Cubed3 and Gaming Age do not have any of the hallmarks of editorial reliability and shouldn't be cited in the article or considered a contribution towards the game's noteworthiness". Pinging the users who I have seen commenting on the page: Dissident93, Masem, SoWhy, Hellknowz, Sergecross73, TarkusAB, TheJoebro64, Lee Vilenski, Izno. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Are all of these the same magazine? Or should we be thinking about these separately? Digitally downloaded has a page about it's editorial role here which is enough for me. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski All are separate. Included them together since they are bound in the same discussion at Talk:Arc System Works#Proposed merge with Othello (2009 video game). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussing 4 difference websites - most of which we were undecided on when we discussed in the past, is probably going to get messy... Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jovanmilic97, can you link prior discussions and your case for/against each below? czar 15:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Added. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I came too late, huh? Thank you Czar for separating this for more clear view, and Hellknowz for adding the previous discussions! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Cubed3[edit]

Previous discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4
  • Unreliable. There are far worse sites and far better. Its work isn't noted by its peers, and its staff largely come from hobbyist backgrounds. It has no listed fact-checking/editorial policy. I see no reason to rely on this blog for statements of fact, nevertheless as a source in an encyclopedia. czar 22:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm still going with situational here. Some of its writers/editors have connections to other industry sources like IGN, GameSpot, and Gamasutra, so I think this would be a case-by-case site where it can be used if the writer can be proven as reliable. JOEBRO64 00:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why the main page still uses the designation "situational", since there is no effective difference between that and an expert writing for an unreliable publication, except that calling the whole publication "situational" (on that expert's behalf) gives the publication credibility where none is warranted by their overall editorial policy. WP:RSN is famous for replying, "well, what's the context?" to any question brought before the noticeboard and the same goes here. Depending on the point being made, the rules of allowable citation are broad. But for the purposes of WP:VG/RS, where we're looking to distinguish and blanketly recommend some few trustworthy sources over the gaggle of game blogs in existence, there is no functional difference between calling a source "situational" and not passing judgment on it at all. Writers/editors do not become de facto reliable for having once written for a great publication, as source reliability rests in the editorial chain, not the individual writer, nevertheless their expertise or pedigree. Now, an experienced writer can be cited as an expert for our purposes, but we treat experts who publish in unreliable venues the same as we treat self-published claims. If that's what we mean by "situational", then there is no need to designate a source as such because any expert writer can write for any publication (or her own blog) and be used under that WP:SPS criteria without need for us to flag an entire source/pub/blog on their behalf. In short, if the case is that specific writers should be used as expert sources, maybe, but that doesn't change the source's overall reliability. czar 01:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yet we list non-independent sources in the RS list.
    Anyway, maybe this points to "hey, let's name some people who we think have the pedigree publishing outside a particular source to validly meet WP:SPS" instead of having the situational list. --Izno (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    +1 czar 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Gaming Age[edit]

Previous discussions: 1, 2, 3
  • I'm not seeing any staff or policy pages... This site was primarily known for its forum, right? czar 22:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    It was formerly part of IGN, so technically ancient news/reviews could be considered reliable. Today's version, I'm not so sure. Lordtobi () 22:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
What was its relation to IGN? Being under IGN's wing doesn't necessarily mean that their editorial standards extended to the publication. czar 13:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Digitally Downloaded[edit]

Previous discussions: 1
Digitally Downloaded is probably reliable. They've got good editorial control and experienced writers, and are able to get interviews with key developers. Based on previous discussions and their staff, I'd still say Cubed3 is situational. A portion of their writers/editors have experience at other publications (IGN, GameSpot, Gamasutra) but not all, so it'd be a case-by-case thing. No opinion yet on the others. JOEBRO64 14:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I supported Digitally Downloaded when we discussed it last, and we were close to a consensus on it, but it seems like there were one or two people who objected. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I can't see an issue with this one. Clearly has an editorial process. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. Editorial policy and a good track record of reliable information. See also the previous discussion linked above. Lordtobi () 16:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable - per my arguments at the last discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In brief, I have the same unresolved concerns as last time. The blog authors were discussed as reliable mainly for their college (not industry) pedigrees, as if having a bachelor's degree confers any semblance of reliability on its own. Background in publishing (as in the EIC's experience) is an indicator of how the individual is regarded within a field (as in being published for a long time usually indicates that others regard your work positively). The second person on the masthead, the US editor, has this background. Nothing wrong with it, but it's a sign that the site is a hobby, not a professional publication.
So... unreliable. Editorial process has more to do with the site's internal structure than whether the individuals went to college, though. E.g., having a "scoring policy" only shows us the difference between a 2-star and a 5-star review—it doesn't indicate that the publication has any reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, review, or issuing corrections. Look, I'm amenable, but I genuinely don't see the case being made above. czar 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

SelectButton[edit]

Previous discussions: none?

One Angry Gamer[edit]

Find video game sources: "One Angry Gamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

One Angry Gamer is already used on a bunch of gaming related articles. I have my own concerns, but interested in seeing how others feel since I'm not that familiar with the sourcing norms for video gaming related articles. From what I can tell, all previous discussions of this source have been for sources in other circumstances primarily Gamergate or BLP related. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Maybe others will already know this, but the Linksearch above is incomplete because the search engine seems to only look for http links. Try this LinkSearch for more. I had a quick look, and found no links to oneangrygamer.net or https://oneangrygamer.net (without the www) Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: I prefer to use insource in Special:Search these days: 20 hits. We can maybe look at changing the sources template substed here to include special:search.... --Izno (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Their staff page seems to just gives bios such as "lifelong gamer" as a credential, so I'd have to lean unreliable just for that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Their about page is also uninspiring. Unreliable. --Izno (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - In addition to point above, WordPress blogs are almost always considered self published and unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Personally I don't think they should count as a reliable source, but mainly bringing up that they were recently called out for misconstruing someone's statement entirely here, and then proceeded to argue with the individual to some length, albeit later on corrected the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. In my experiences, they have a bias against "social justice warriors" that leads them to allow bias to cloud their judgment and information. The example Kung Fu Man provides serves as a good example of this. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion of the reliability of Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Dexerto. — Newslinger talk 03:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Heads up on a new source from former CVG staff[edit]

VideoGamesChronicle.com [1] is going to be a new expert video game news site from former members of the CVG team following its closure a few years back [2] It will be operating under the Gamer Network, and will appear to have a good editorial structure. Obviously we should wait to see the exact content they produce, but we should have this on our radar. --Masem (t) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

ScreenRant[edit]

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

Is there any affirmative reason to trust this website for statements of fact? Prior discussion is available here. My read of that discussion was that its usage is not recommended—having no hallmarks of editorial trustworthiness/review/pedigree—and that its reliability would be contested if ever brought to discussion (such as now). So do we really need a separate discussion with bold text to mark it as unreliable? Seems clear enough to me. (btw, the site spells its title as both ScreenRant and Screen Rant.) czar 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I think this site is reliable (though that's not the reason I reverted you; I did because that discussion was barely "consensus", just one person saying it didn't look good). It's a sister site of Comic Book Resources (considered one of the most trustworthy comic news sites in the industry) and they share staff. The staff is paid and experienced, and it's got editorial oversight—the editorial director (and he's not the only one, they've got like 10 other editors) has a masters degree in economics and degrees in marketing and computer science, and is also oversees CBR. The film project already considers it reliable, so I don't see why we shouldn't. JOEBRO64 13:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
re: degrees, which comes up fairly often on this page, I'm not sure why it's useful as a factor in publication reliability. Even having an advanced degree in video games makes no guarantee of factual reliability apart from their personal ethics. Writers/scholars make mistakes and that's why reliability comes from another party's review (editorial oversight/policy, fact-checking, reputation for internal standards or within larger industry). A WP editor's degrees don't make their paraphrase reliable either. If anything, the editorial director's degrees qualify him to a run an entertainment business property, maybe, or oversee CBR as a business, but that implies nothing about editorial standards. Now if all writers have backgrounds in journalism and are paid, sure, I'd assume the publication has higher standards, but without any affirmation of oversight, it can just as easily be on par with a gossip rag whose editors have similar pedigrees.
"The film project already considers it reliable" is in reference to what discussion? If this one, I'd say that our last discussion was much more robust. czar 14:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
If we were to consider degrees to determine reliability, we should only consider degrees in journalism or related fields; business and technology degrees do not make you a good journalist. What bothers me, though, is that Robert Keyes (as linked above) was the EiC of CBR, which is stated above as one of the most trustworthy sites, but also the founder and EiC of GameRant, which our project considers unreliable. All three (CBR, ScreenRant, GameRant) do not have any publicly available editorial policy, so I would generally classify them as unreliable, or situational at best because they do not have track records of bad information that I know of. Lordtobi () 14:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
GameRant isn't part of the Valnet network (which includes CBR and Screen Rant). And the GameRant page only lists Anthony Taormina as EiC; Keyes is nowhere to be found. I really don't see how Screen Rant isn't reliable. There's a wide precedent for its usage on film and comic book-related articles (including GAs/FAs) and, according to this page, it's been cited by over 20 high-quality sources. As for editorial policy, I'll email them later to see what I can find; considering they've got over 10 editors I doubt it's not something to hide. JOEBRO64 15:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Keyes lists GameRant on his LinkedIn CV; he founded it and was EiC there for 6 years. Other ScreenRant staff are also former staff of GameRant or other unreliable sources.[3][4][5][6] As for usage frequency, I think we recently had a similar discussion that ruled out usage as means to keep. But indeed, ScreenRant and CBR both belong to Valnet (speaking of Valnet, we can thro TheGamer into the mix), while GameRant is owned by Warp 10. However, the founder of ScreenRant currently is the CEO of Warp 10 and the president for GameRant. My best guess is that ScreenRant was bought off Warp 10 once. Speaking reliability, displaying an editorial policy is usually a good indication. ScreenRant, or any other Valnet property, does not have (or at least does not display) any such policy. What's more, the site endorses paid contributors without apparent application guidelines. Lordtobi () 17:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
So does Forbes, which is a RS. TBH I think it'll be a shame if we classify Screen Rant as unreliable, as I think its articles are extremely useful and high-quality, and it's been cited by The New York Times, HuffPost, Cnet, CBS, Fox, ABC, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. I'm also going to throw in here that CBR has won Eisner and Harvey Awards. I don't see how either CBR or Screen Rant are different from ComicBook.com, which is considered reliable. JOEBRO64 17:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's just my opinion, also based on what was mentioned in previous discussions. I'm no fan of ComicBook.com either, and haven't heard it is a locked-in reliable source. Either way, we should leave this open for more comments. I'm not here to rule it all. Lordtobi () 17:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Valve News Network[edit]

Find video game sources: "Valve News Network" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Aka Tyler McVicker's channel. Not proposing as a direct source but as a "rumor mill" type source that is justified to talk about when other parties discuss their findings. Eg: VG247 story discussing the channel's release of possible L4D3 screenshots. McVicker clearly does research to confirm as best he can as a non-Valve employee, (eg he spent a year to confirm these shots were likely legit). Using this source would require ID'ing McVicker (eg "According to Tyler McVicker, these shots were from....") so we're not treating his conclusions as facts.

I want to be clear this is basically making sure we're talking about this channel because of it recognized as doing its research, rather than some random blogged that string-scummed terms out of an executable and made a far fetched conclusion without any checking or supporting evidence. --Masem (t) 17:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)