Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 3

Andriasang is starting to be used so incredibly much as a resource by all the major sites that I think we should take a look at whether or not it's suitable to use AS itself as a reliable source. Arrowned (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The site is the work of a single person, Anoop Gantayat - well, this is the only name on the "about" page, and the only person contributing to the blog. The site is also self-published. So it all depedents on if he is considered "an expert in his field". Marasmusine (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anoop Gantayat has been a long time contributor at IGN.com: [1][2][3][4] I'd say he would qualify as reliable video game journalist under WP:SPS.

It's important to remember though that the ok is for the author, not the website. If other authors begin contributing to the site, then their content would have to be evaluated separately. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

A google search turned up some pages that cite Andriasang

• GameInformer: [5][6][7][8][9]
• Eurogamer: [10][11][12]
• 1UP.com: [13][14]
• Edge: [15][16]

So appending what I said earlier, it looks like the site as a whole could pass under WP:SPS. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

If he's good enough for Edge, he's good enough for me. Marasmusine (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything else need to be discussed? If not we should check this off as reliable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Might it be possible to add Nintendo Life as a reliable source? They update frequently, often post reviews and impressions pieces, and very rarely post rumours (which, if they do, they state frequently in the news item). Cipher ^(Talk) 23:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My first thought was no, but closer inspection may say otherwise.

• I remember the Vitrual Console Reviews site—which Nintendo Life acquired—getting some coverage in Retro Gamer: an interview with the creator and some occasional listings as a site to check out.
• The site's editor-in-chief, Damien McFerran (who also runs the Mean Machine Archive) has written content for Retro Gamer, GamesTM, Stuff,[17] and Eurogamer[18].

I'll try to do a search of other reliable gaming website citing them as a source. At the very least, I'd say anything on the site done by McFerran would qualify under WP:SPS. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Outside of forum and comment posts, here's what I found:

• IGN: [19]
• 1UP.com: [20][21]
• Joystiq: [22] (don't know the reliability of the author, JC Fletcher, but the Joystiq article was reproduced at GameDaily[23])
• GamesRadar:[24]
• Wii Innovate - How Nintendo Created a New Market Through the Strategic Innovation Wii By Jörg Ziesak [25]

The citations are rather minimal, and this is literally all I could find. But combining this with my comments above make think the site is reliable. However, I think we should wait until others chime in before it gets a stamp of approval. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Please just don't remove them. We have a section for unreliable websites. This is especially important for sites we have originally listed as reliable or situational.陣内_Jinnai 03:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

I often go Googling for reliable sources on a game whose Wikipedia article is short on them, and am frustrated to find that most of the hits, after the game's own site, are fan sites and personal blogs. Shall we create a Google Co-op custom search engine to search only those sites we've identified as reliable secondary sources on video games? (This could be useful as a pilot project, since I suspect all WikiProjects would benefit from such an engine.) NeonMerlin 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've created such a search engine a few months ago, although it searches for more than just sites dealing with video games. http://www.google.com /cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en Google search engines are black listed for some reason so I had to include a space between ".com" and "/cse/" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made one too that searches only the sites approved on this page: www.google.com/cse/home?cx=004453055800956638747:6ed0u5bnolu&hl=en. I couldn't make it a hyperlink either, because of the blacklist. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit limiting. Mainstream news organizations cover video games, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but all that takes is a Google News Archive search. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Links:

• http://www.gameclassification.com/EN/ (also http://www.ludoscience.com/EN/)
• http://www.greatgamesexperiment.com/

Are these just wikis, or are they worth referencing? SharkD (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like both of them allow anyone to register and allow all members to submit stuff. I can't find indication of any approval process whatsoever on either site. In addition, it appears that most of Game Classification's descriptions come from Wikipedia. Neither of them look like reliable sources to me. Reach Out to the Truth 04:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gameclassification.com has two red flags: "collaberative" and being self-published. Great Games Experiment is now published by Push Button Labs: about; looks robust. Only a recent aquisition, so may be one to keep an eye on. Marasmusine (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The sites don't look like they'd meet WP:RS. However, LudoScience has some online versions of their papers.[26][27][28][29] Since the people have academic credentials in video gaming, these might satisfy WP:RS; too bad they look to be in French. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

So, should we wait a while longer on Great Games Experiment? SharkD  Talk  22:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that some reviews on high-traffic game pages are getting removed, not because of reliability, but because of "notability." I've always assumed that reliability was the measuring stick for sources cited on Wikipedia. Of course, websites should be fairly well trafficked and established to help confirm reliability (since new websites or extremely small websites might not have a strong editorial foundation), but I thought the quality of information and qualifications of the editors should be more important than how many tens of thousands of hits are received; especially since very large sites like Kotaku and Joystiq have limited reliability.

What are these "notability" standards for Wikipedia? Or are users inventing them? I'm wondering what the standard is to go by--whether notability is traffic, citation on other websites, publisher support, or some other combination of factors.

And should a site be judged on notability, rather than the piece of content being cited? Which holds more weight, assuming both sites are reliable: a piece of huge breaking news from a less-known website, or a piece that contributes nothing new (information-wise, like a piece that collects and condenses large amounts of old information already reported) from a very well-known site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.45.22.152 (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's reliable it shouldn't matter what sites we use as sources. The notability guidelines apply to articles themselves, not to the sources or other content contained in them. Reach Out to the Truth 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So how should the removal of sources supposedly grounded in source "notability" be handled?220.45.22.152 (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you give examples of the websites you're talking about? To my knowledge, reliability has been the driving factor in any removals to this page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

I'm not referring to this page, just coming here to ask because it seems the right place to do so, since it seemed odd that the word "notable" kept coming up. I'm looking in particular at the revision history of Final Fantasy XIII starting in mid-January. The game comes out next month and the Reception section is getting constantly raked over. It's chaotic and messy. I've noticed three in particular on that page: Gameplay Monthly's review was suggested for removal with "minimal returns on Google," and there seems to be a minor tug of war concerning RPG Site's and RPG Land's reviews, with both being reported as not "notable." This phenomenon doesn't seem restricted to just the Final Fantasy XIII page, either; on the Uncharted 2: Among Thieves revision history, the word comes up again. Notable, notable, notable, by several different users, all referring to websites or reviews, not pieces of information. I was curious about what lends weight to this notability claim, rather than judging sources on reliability. 220.45.22.152 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Although a lot of users seem to get 'reliable' and 'notable' mixed up (which might be all that's happening), they might also be suggesting that a review site so minor it doesn't qualify as notable by WP standards isn't an ideal source for a major game (possibly). I haven't looked at the edits, but both games you give as examples are not just Triple-A titles but among the handful of the most important releases of their respective years - neither of which could possibly need sources for reception which are anything other than cast-iron reliable and notable in their own rights. Someoneanother 16:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. As Reach Out to the Truth mentioned, notability should not factor into determining sources. Echoing Someoneanother's comments, some unnotable review site are also unreliable. This is because a large portion of gaming sites are owned and operated by a single person or small group of people with no previous professional experience. While this doesn't mean they are untrustworthy, it typically excludes them from Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source.

I suggest starting a discussion on the relevant article talk page about the reliability of the sources in question. If you can demonstrate that they are reliable then they should not be excluded from the article. We typically look for an "about" page of some kind that explains the site's editorial process and lists the staff and their credentials. We also do searches of other reliable sources to see if the website has been referenced or cited. If they are frequently cited by other reliable sources, we can use WP:SPS to consider them industry experts. See some of the above threads for examples.

Hope that helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks a lot. I was wondering if it was just users mixing up reliability and notability, because usually people are very specific with Wikipedia's terms for its standards. I was aware of the regulations in place for self-published sources, but this does help clear up what other users might have been trying to get at by using the word "notability." 220.45.22.152 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that people are a lot more picky when it comes to games that have not been released yet, the reasoning being that it is a lot harder to be reliable (or factually correct) about something that hasn't seen the light of day. I.e. any information released about the subject is at a greater risk of being mere rumor and speculation, regardless of where it comes from. That might be the problem in your case. SharkD  Talk  19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think the real difficulty here is the wish to quote the comments of individual reporters/sensationalists. I don't think you should quote any of them. None of them are notable enough to quote on game releases. That sort of notability belongs to people like the head of state of a country or Jesus. Besides, sensationalism is innapropraite for Wikipedia. I will rake out the guidelines about it if you would like. In the meantime it's blatant advertising/promotion and I am going to remove that part now that I have noticed it. The dispute was at first hard to understand as it is so difficult to run out of room for each source you can find but when you get down to "My Mammy says...". My Mammy is better than your Mammy. ~ R.T.G 21:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Two points:

• Traffic/readership is a poor indication of reliability. Peer-reviewed academic journals (such as Nature) are highly prized by Wikipedia but have very small readerships. On the other hand, websites such the celebrity gossip site TMZ have a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking but are well-trafficked . Now, I don't believe there are any peer-reviewed academic journals on video games, but the point about traffic/readership still applies. It's a source's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking that is the key indicator.
• The 'notability' standards for Wikipedia are defined in WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The section in question was an ensemble of quotes from reviewers working for various mags, nothing more. It probably should be much more generalised. I have trimmed a lot of the actual quotes insofar as they were weighed with sensationalism but yet it is still a bit too detailed: "RPGFan's James Quinton Clark rated the game at 85%, and considered the game, in some regards, as the best in the series, with the best original soundtrack of any video game ever made, but criticised the removal of towns and questioned the worth of playing the game repeatedly." twenty or so quotes such as that after around one sentence of practical information. Did any of those quotes bare particular relevance to the game? In that case I think notability has a merit. There are hundreds of game revewiers with personal opinions. Best not to spotlight all, some or one, isn't it? ~ R.T.G 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Which articles are we talking about again? SharkD  Talk  02:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII but it seems that a lot of the more recent articles are showing a long list of quotes. At first I was thinking delete all that but at the same time some effort often goes in to rounding off the percentage scores of many top reviewers. I did cut a chunk out of Final Fantasy XIII's section but maybe, with what appears to be similar sections on many articles, it is a matter for manual-of-style discussion... ~ R.T.G 04:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that there has been a consensus reached that their sales numbers are not sufficiently accurate. However, VG Chartz also reports news and reviews games. I did not see this discussed earlier so excuse me if it was, but has there been a consensus reached that these other aspects are compromised as well? --Kamasutra (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I see no consensus that says other parts of the site are compromised by terrible sales figures. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was really hoping for more acknowledgment/discussion. I don't really feel comfortable changing the project page with such little support. --Kamasutra (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing they are acknowledged for are their charts, and their staff don't inspire much confidence (looks like their PR manager is in high school). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The description says he's attending the University of Central Florida, but I hope we're not judging people by their looks. There are likely people at various gaming publications and blogs that are considered reliable (or at least situationally so) who do not look dissimilar. Can anyone legitimately show why those other aspects should be considered unreliable? Specifically to their editorial, as long as there is no evidence of foul play (or even some overt bias) is it right to say their opinions should be considered more unreliable than another? I should point out that what prompted this is an edit to List of awards received by Uncharted 2: Among Thieves where their awards were deemed unreliable. --Kamasutra (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that they have no track record or established "street cred", and they don't have staff that could be considered experts per WP:SPS, meaning we couldn't use their content on a case-by-case basis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still at odds of removing VG Chartz as a WP:RS. "Street cred" should not be the reaeson for using a reference but at discretion of the editor and consensus. Consensus can change, and it seems more than one member does not agree with this guideline. I specifically say guideline because this Wikiproject's decision is not the final word, only the actual Wikipedia policies. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Street cred does matter, as per WP:V "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." VG Chartz definitely does not have a good reputation in that respect. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Any news outside of sales data from VG Chartz that I've seen usually does filter or appear in other more reliable sources. That is, if you see a news story in VGC, you likely will be able find it cited elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs is correct that it does not have a history for fact-checking and accuracy but you forget to mention that this is merely in the area of video game sales and statistics, but what of articles that consist of rankings and news which User:Masem pointed out that can be found elsewhere, but the case still stands they are accurate news articles nonetheless. Surely Wikipedians cannot be blind to the fact that it indeed can be accurate in other areas? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what everyone here is trying to say is that proof needs to be presented. Even though only the site's creditability for its sales figures is questionable, that does not give it a free pass on other things. The website is independently operated by a person, which Wikipedia considers a self-published source. It's reliability would have to be demonstrated as an established expert on the topic.

Essentially, if you believe they are an accurate video game news site, then please show that other reliable sources agree with that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

I did look up reliable sources which mention VGChartz, but it is referncing the sales lists of VGChartz not the ranking articles and the news articles which are my main concern. I don't very much care for the charts section but here are those references for you:

• http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/04/wii-sports-is-best-selling-game-of-all-time-according-to-vgchar/
• http://kotaku.com/5011161/penny-arcade-game-busts-three+day-records
• http://www.n4g.com/gaming/News-95603.aspx
• http://www.infendo.com/vgchartz-marks-wii-sports-as-best-selling-game-of-all-time/

I would be surprised if you haven't seen these references but those are of no consequence right now. I don't entirely understand what the vendetta is against VGChartz. It makes false statements but doesn't rescind them and you make it seem like a pariah amongst video game reviewers. To be frank, if you can't see that the facts being verifiable is top priority then you've really missed the point of a major Wikipedia policy. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do recall some of those, and as you pointed out, they pertain mainly to the site's sales info. The second link, however, does quote the site's opinion. Those are the kind of proof of reliability you need to present. At the moment though, more would have to be presented.

I understand if this discussion may seem frustrating, but VGChartz is not being singled out. If you look at previous discussions on this page and the archives, many other such sites have been evaluated. We place them under scrutiny because our articles must comply with WP:RS and WP:V in order to pass Good article and Featured article evaluations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

Beyond that one link, I've not found anymore reliable websites that use VGChartz material outside of their sales figures. The thing is, if you indeed place the site under scrutiny, then why do you do a blanket ban of the entire site instead of tagging it as a situtational source? Like a limitation, "Use of sales figures are forbidden" and instead it have it listed as a (News, reviews, and blogs). I don't doubt that the sales are spotty at best. I just need to see that the other parts are compromised from terrible sales to truly believe that VGChartz is not a reliable source. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, defining reliable sources on Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Sources need to be proven reliable, not unreliable. You may think we're being unfair, but we've all been on the other side of this in past discussions at peer reviews, GA nominations, and FA candidacies. This is done to ensure the content we provide to readers has at least some level of accuracy and editorial oversight. So sorry, but without more evidence, I don't see VGChartz' content being accepted on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Well, I guess this discussion is over. Even though i'll keep looking for things that prove VGChartz reliable, as of nnow, I give up this current argument. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the reviews posted on GameFAQs only by their editorial staff, or approved by their editorial staff? It currently says not to use them for reviews. Dream Focus 12:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

GameFAQs has no editorial staff. They're all written by GameFAQs users. They have to be approved before appearing on the site, but it's not hard at all to get it approved. However, GameFAQs does include links to the game's GameSpot review and to GameRankings, where you can find other reviews that we may be able to use. Reach Out to the Truth 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The only items that are reliable from GameFAQs is the stuff on the data page as those are submitted by the publisher/licensor.陣内_Jinnai 14:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

At present, I think policy is doing harm to free software games, at least those using a bazaar development model (which is almost all of them). Consider that there are dozens of reliable publications listed for sourcing, yet none of them deal with free software/open source. A few of them occasionally publish lists of free games, but all too often they muddle the distinction between freeware and free software, typically focusing on the former. On the freeware (and independent, commercial) front there's a fair amount of coverage, because these development models mirror that of the AAA-budget commercial titles they typically cover, just on a much smaller scale.

The reasons why there are no professional free software gaming publications are severalfold. Firstly, relative to a commercial game, progress in a volunteer project is inherently slow, due to their inability to work dozens of hours a week on a hobby project. Secondly, progress in an open source game is typically evolutionary, not revolutionary: An average release will typically bring a number of bug fixes and some minor content additions. On the other hand, commercial games are largely binary: Progress is kept entirely internal, perhaps releasing screenshots or gameplay demos, until the game is complete, at which point it's released and the marketing department begins its work.

The distinction here is quite important. The commercial product goes from teaser screenshots to fully-playable game as soon as it's released, and even without the millions in marketing large publishers spend, there's still something wholly new out there to try (and write about). With an open source project, even major releases aren't total departures from the previous versions, merely building upon them. Lastly, community size, both in terms of developers and users. For every prominent open source game project, there are multiple professional game studios, and on the user side of things, the average gamer would rather play Halo 3 than the latest release of The Battle for Wesnoth, with the former game having orders of magnitude more popularity despite Wesnoth being one of the most popular open source games.

These factors combine to make professional open source gaming publications infeasible. You've got less readers, less games to cover, each game progresses more slowly versus a commercial counterpart, and there are rarely brand new games to cover.

Professional open source gaming coverage is basically non-existent. You get occasional blips in the form of lists in non-gaming publications like Techgage, Linux-Magazine and APC Magazine, but this isn't journalism. These lists are content for the sake of itself, filling out a light month with articles hacked together in 20 minutes from Google results. They come from "reliable" sources, but grading their video game articles independently, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

On the non-commercial front, you have The Linux Game Tome and a handful of similar sites like LinuxGames, which publish user-submitted game news with minimal editorial oversight. These are very shaky, but at present they're cited rarely, due to lack of other sources, though more often appearing in external links where they probably belong. There is also LinuxLinks, which composes its own lists and articles (Such as this list of 100 games), but the quality does seem low. The per-game descriptions mostly amount to rewordings of materials found elsewhere, with zero insight into the games (or reviewing), and typos are encountered throughout. Yet... this seems to pass WP:SPS, and thusly I've seen it cited quite a few times.

As for things that definitely fail WP:SPS? That's where you find the good open source journalism, I'm afraid. Free Gamer, for example, is one of the best open source game blogs around. Unlike the Linux Game Tome and its ilk, Free Gamer goes beyond parroting news releases. It does reviews, like a good game publication should; it's well written, yet it's still a self-published blog and thus fails WP:SPS. There's also Linux Gaming News, though that focuses more on closed-source software, which is outside the scope of what I'm discussing.

My basic point is this: Open source games are not supported by a multi-billion-dollar industry. New releases don't get picked up by a dozen established publications, and there is no advertising to speak of. The "reliable" sources that publish open source game information mostly do so to fill space, with no actual journalism taking place. Thusly, good sourcing becomes very difficult unless policies like WP:SPS are partially ignored, and articles are able to be supported by locally-reputable sources like Free Gamer.

Note that I'm not suggesting that WP:SELFPUB #5 be ignored, as that would cause a breakdown of notability requirements.

To illustrate my point, take a look at a few articles from the List of open-source video games. Unless someone's used a game in a research project or it used to be commercial, you likely won't find any decent sources. I fully believe this is a case of policy getting in the way of improving Wikipedia, and per-article exceptions won't solve that. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Because something like this would necessitate a change at the policy level to ensure protection of articles primarily relying on sources like Free Gamer, I've taken this to Wikipedia_talk:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singlemaltscotch (talk • contribs) 06:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Singlemaltscotch, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that's just how Wikipedia is setup. You put forth a very good argument why it is unfair for free software. But Wikipedia's counter to similar situations has been that the topic is not notable. While that seems unfair to free video games, the same rules apply to commercial video games.

So while I understand this is frustrating, this simply means that the topics are notable for inclusion. Wikipedia has decided that not everything should be on its website. Sorry. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree with Singlemaltscotch's point of view. And presenting the case for discussion is the best thing to do, Wikipedia is an organically growing structure, so the regulations might be changed every now and then if people present good arguments and are backed by the community. Let's see how this develops. NeoGenPT (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem also exists for indie games as well, freely-distributed books, etc.陣内_Jinnai 05:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the post in full. However, I'd like to add that I think it's possible there's some sense within the OSS community that since Wikipedia's content and software backend are under open licenses that its users should somehow also "support" the broader OSS community via such advertisements. A sort of clique mentality I guess. SharkD  Talk  04:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Are they a RS? Right now I'm trying to merge Cultural differences in role-playing video games. There is an article by Sherrin English (can anyone say alias with a pun). Sherrin English does not come up in any searches outside those with NZGamer and I don't find anyone reliable that could credit them as a WP:SPS. The only thing I see that gives them any legitimacy is that it seems they are able to get some beta codes distributed to the public.

EDIT: As it stands right now, I am inclined to not consider this a RS for the sake of merging.陣内_Jinnai 03:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, WikiProject Video Games has been evaluating sources for a long time now and hundreds of them to boot. There is some talk about evaluating other sources, specifically news organisations. This is exactly what you have been doing on this page. I wonder if anyone knows a lot about how this project came to evaluate each source, why, when, etc. What are the pros? What are the cons? Would you like to tell us about it on Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_Organisations_section? ~ R.T.G 00:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the list and a few ideas came to mind.

• Should The Adrenaline Vault and MTV Multiplayer be moved to the situational section?
• What makes Gameplanet reliable? We don't have any info listed for it.
• I've seen Rock, Paper Shotgun's reliability questioned several times before. Do we have the credentials of the "four experienced UK games journalists", and are they the only contributors? If not, then we should at least move this to the situational section.

Feel free to create a subsection if you think one of the points need it, or if there's another point you want to add. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Just remembered one more. Should we list the ESRB in the situational section? I know it's been cited several times on Wikipedia for release information. However, these were later disputed. Several discussions concluded (in my opinion anyway) that we could only cite them to say the game was submitted to the ESRB and that it received a rating. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Rock Paper Shotgun: it's those four who maintain the site and post virtually all the material. Kieron Gillen's article lists his writing experience. The other three write for PC Gamer UK (I've read their articles). Jim Rossignol has had a book published by the University of Michigan Press, see link for his credentials under 'about the author'. John Walker's worked for Eurogamer as well, as has Alec Meer. Someoneanother 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow up- Should The Adrenaline Vault and MTV Multiplayer be moved from the "general" section to the "situational"? Both stipulate that "May need to demonstrate reliability of individual authors." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

I noticed that the now-defunct magazine VideoGames & Computer Entertainment has not been established as a reliable source. VG&CE was a well-known and national publication in its era (1988-1996) as well as a valuable source of reviews and other articles regarding games from that time period. It should be considered a "retro" listing. Rg998 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds OK with me. SharkD  Talk  07:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Reliable? Not? SharkD  Talk  05:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been allowing it. The writer's biographies show good credentials (examples [30] [31]) and the site is owned by the New York Times. Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My gut reaction is to say no, but the link for DS Cohen makes me think otherwise. Any other information about the site or authors? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Some info from the site: About about (NB the NYT ownership was from March 2005 onwards, so perhaps be careful with articles prior to this); Ethics policy indicates their level of professionalism; Overview states they have an editorial team and new authors are taught to editorial standards. Marasmusine (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to call them reliable. Some more input from others would be good to solidify this though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

BTW, I was instigated to start the thread based on discussion here. SharkD  Talk  17:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For About.com, at Anime & Manga, the lead writers are considered reliable for each.陣内_Jinnai 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I find that About.com typically has very accurate articles(video game-wise) as well as accurate for history-related articles. If we limit the articles to after 2005, then that'll be fine. Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a response there [32], as one user is blanking two UGO Network and About.com cites based on their being "extremist" and "promotional in nature". SharkD  Talk  09:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of disallowing mmoabc.com as a source for these reasons:

• History of link spamming [33]
• Appalling grammar in some reviews [34] tells me there isn't a strong editorial process. Most read like press releases [35][36]
• I can't see any information about their staff. Their "about" information explicitly states that they are in the business of helping game publishers "promote and launch their games successfully..."

All these points combined make me wonder if the publishers themselves aren't writing the reviews. In general, I believe this falls under the "questionable source" description of WP:RS. Marasmusine (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, if there's no objection, I'll mark this off as unreliable. Marasmusine (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

These partner sites seem to provide references for quite a few articles, but they look very unreliable to me. No editorial policy that I can find, no by-lines of authors, and a whole lot of advertisements. GalaxyNews, in particular, has a yearly browser game award (at browsergameoftheyear.com) but doesn't provide any details on how the winners are chosen. Opinions? Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Permitting the usual horrible job of Google translate, it looks like galaxy-news.net accepts user submitted content, there is no process for checking the credentials of editors, and the minimum age to become a writer is 16, suggesting that editorial review/actual journalism credentials are absent. See here and here. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Then should these be added to the "Unreliable sources" section? Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone wants to throw in their $0.02, I'll add both sites to the "Unreliable sources" section in a few days. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I found an article on Softpedia which seems to be good, but it has a lot of ads on the page. Is it still good? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Who's the author? Marasmusine (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexandru Stanescu, and a similar one has Filip Truta. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

With any source, seeing if the author could meet WP:SPS is a good idea. I'd lean towards reliable, as they have a staff, editorial processes, and are established (been around since 2001, a top 500 web site apparently). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is another site I keep coming across and I think we should add to the "Unreliable sources" pile. No author by-lines, no discussion of editorial policy, uncritical trivial reviews of games (bordering on press releases), fan-submitted content and voting, and it appears every game they review gets a 5/5 rating. Plus, they're pushing downloads of Firefox yet they're not the official German Firefox mirror site. Very suspicious. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree; also see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperion. Marasmusine (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded (Or thirded?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across an article where the creator is basically asking if Gamers Daily News, or more specifically this article would count as a reliable source to help them establish notability? I figured this is the best place to ask. Any ideas? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd call it a very marginal source, if that. Author credit is given, but the authors aren't very notable as far as I can tell. Plus, anybody can submit news which smacks of press-release-factory-ism. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I just updated all of the talk links from the project page to their appropriate archived talk page, except for those currently linking here. Any idea if this is something that can be done when MiszaBot archives the talk page? Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Geimin.net is a site thet publish Media Create Top 500 lists. Some featured (Super Smash Bros. Melee, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy XI, Mario Power Tennis), and some GA article (Advance Wars: Dual Strike, Pilotwings 64, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune) cite it. So is it reliable or not? Sillent DX (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am, admittedly, looking at the site through translation software, but I'm having trouble finding any details on Geimin's editorial staff. There's an "about" link (6th bullet point down underneath the square barcode on the right-hand side) but it just links to the "Tweets" section on the front page. The site is also self-owned. Will investigate further. Marasmusine (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Was discussed earlier, and it seemed no consensus was formed, but leaning no. However since then there have been aggregate sites that use the site. Specifically Game Rankings and Gamespot on their aggregate score list. I'd like to use it to help get a title listed on those links as notable.陣内_Jinnai 17:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've come across a few links to this site - I can't find any evidence of its reliability or notability as a reviewer. Can someone take a look please? Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It just seems to be a self-published blog for a handful of people, so it depends on the credentials of the authors. One editor is Ben; one prolific writer is [37]. I can't see any indication that they are "experts in their field". I would say no. Marasmusine (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#IGN_Review_scores which may affect citation recommendations certain websites. - X201 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget that. Brain fade on my part - X201 (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if the site could be used as reliable source since it is an official community and it's blog does feature current information on upcoming Dragon Ball games. They along with FileFront resently conducted an interview with Masayuki Masayuki Hirano and Bryant Green on Dragon Ball: Origins 2, and now they are preparing an interview with Ryo Mito regarding Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2. Sarujo (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The parent site looks pretty official ("© BIRD STUDIO/SHUEISHA, TOEI ANIMATION. License coordinated by FUNimation® Productions, Ltd."), so as long as what you want to cite is an official post, and not just forum/user content, it's acceptable as a WP:PRIMARY. Marasmusine (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel they were dismissed a bit prematurely before. The site has a regular editorial staff, though the user-contributed reviews and blogs are to be considered unreliable, of course. I didn't see any major sites picking them up, though they found their way into two news posts (1, 2) on Blue's News. Opinions? Prime Blue (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly acceptable. Going by WP:SPS I, at random, checked up on senior writer Alan Bell. I've found that his reviews have been published at Microsoft and Stuff.co.nz (and some others I'm not so sure on such as GetFrank). Marasmusine (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm leaning towards not. If the comments were published in more sterling sources, I'd be fine with at least SPS, but a regional MS office isn't exactly high quality for reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. They have a particular interview here on The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword that seems to be the only source of information that confirms that Skyloft is a "series of floating islands." Just now I poked around the site a bit, and it seems to be legitimate. Of course, it has some blog-style editorials, but then again, so does IGN. So while not all of the content is necessarily encyclopedic, interviews such as the one I linked to should be acceptable sources. But that's just my opinion. Pineconn (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I always was of the impression that WP:SPS is about Wikipedia editors using their own websites as references, so thanks for that clarification. However, I am still not entirely clear on the limits of WP:SPS. While, in my opinion, NZGamer does go beyond the realm of personal websites, it needs to be picked up by other reliable sources to be considered reliable itself, right? It's a bit of an unfortunate guideline as many useful sources (such as the interview above) cannot be used. It seems like this problem has been brought up at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability several times before. Prime Blue (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure who maintains it, but this is about our custom google "reliable sources" search. I just ran a search fo Sol Survivor [38], and it has returned a hit for n4g.com, despite it being crossed off our VG/RS list. Is it perhaps just a "conditional" source? Marasmusine (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of N4G is that it's a kind of news aggregator, so I suppose it should be a conditional source depending on where the original article came from. It's probably a good idea to keep it in the custom search as N4G is normally very well indexed by Google, whereas the original site may not be. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 10:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It was started at WP:Anime and it should integrate all the sources from this list now. Talk to Gwern if you have some issues, but make certain the source really is unreliable.陣内_Jinnai 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "gamingunion.net" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "gaming union" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Do we have a precedent for using gamingunion.net? I saw that it was recently used as a ref but then reverted. They seem to have a decent staff and quality assurance, though I'm not sure how that fits in with editorial oversight. —Ost (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that their editor founded the site and still contributes to much of the content is a strike against it... have you seen it referenced by definitely reliable publications? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't. That's a reason why I asked here to see if anyone had heard of it, read it, or seen it used. Not that this has anything to do with reliability, but it looks like the site is only used in 51 articles, and the links seem to have been added in good faith as the few I checked have been added by different editors. —Ost (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "mmosite.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I'd like to get the consensus on mmosite.com. Here's the About Us page. Here are some typical reviews:[39][40] - amateurish, mangled grammar and lack of fact-checking leads me to believe that the editors publish submissions indiscriminately. I'd like to mark the site down as "not reliable". Marasmusine (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this one is used a lot, but it just doesn't seem to have a real editorial process. I'd call it unreliable. --Teancum (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

There is a website www.media-cows.com, they are relatively new. While still a blog, they still have some good content. They purport to cover reviews and do video walkthroughs. Recently, an editor Ben posted a good Kane & Lynch 2 review, and it deserves to be put in the reception section. Thoughts? I believe they should be classified under situational sources, perhaps not reliable for news but for reviews certainly so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpreaditorxx (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They've no established notability whatsoever, media-cows is just a front page for a blogspot blog. Definitely shouldn't be included. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a self-published site, so the authors will need a history of prior reliable publication. However the site is not at all open about who the authors are, so this is a definite no. Marasmusine (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Giant Bomb" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Should we really be using Giant Bomb as a reliable source? It seems they are stealing a lot from other sites, for instance MobyGames. See thread. SharkD  Talk  05:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's listed as a situational source right now, with an admonition to only use reviews by the site's staff. Even if they copy all of their database from MobyGames, we wouldn't use it anyway. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Reviews are probably the only use for the site, its database provides no actual use. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As an active Giant Bomb member myself, we've long known that the initial game database originated from MobyGames. But it's also an open wiki, so we wouldn't be using it as a reliable source anyway. Official news and reviews from the staff are still acceptable though, unless there is some other reason why they shouldn't be. Reach Out to the Truth 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "MobyGames" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "Moby Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

See discussion here. Prime Blue (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "DualShockers.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

A news user User:Iiprotocolii has made edits to three games, on each occasion adding reviews from DualShockers.com not sure if its a COI yet (although if it quacks like a duck...) but I just wanted someone with better knowledge than me of the things to look for, to do the once over of the review site and see if it passes muster. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Gamerant.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Never heard of this site before, but it came up in an AfD. Anyone know anything about it? It's currently only used in five articles. Seems to be a sister site to screenrant.com, which is used in a handful of references. I did a quick Alexa search here if it helps, and here is a link to their About page. --Teancum (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the staff appear to have a prior publication history or compelling positions in the industry. Add this one to the mountainouse pile of SPSs. Marasmusine (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I just thought that, since we have so many web sites where the usability depends on the author, wouldn't it be a good idea to compile a list of reliable authors? I've found Destructoid to be mostly unusable, since I can't tell if any authors are reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, that's a great idea. But I only know Brian Crecente... Anyone else? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Would Leigh Alexander qualify? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't see why not: she's one of the major contributors to Gamasutra.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, but before we do this, make certain that they have another website/blog devoted to video gaming outside of the websites mentioned. We don't need to list someone if they are a RS and only really publish in RSes anyway.陣内_Jinnai 13:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, sometimes, someone without a blog or web site might post on a somewhat-reliable source, or even a typically unreliable source, who may be reliable on their own, y'know? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it might be difficult to manage when there are conflicts over whether it's best to list the person or instead list the site they write for. SharkD  Talk  05:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on Tim Rogers? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Tim Rogers is less unreliable and more terrible. So in effect, he's awful, but I view him as a usable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to search only among all Talk pages for this project, for instance to see if a site has been discussed previously? SharkD  Talk  00:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out, and added a second search form to the top of this page. SharkD  Talk  00:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Patrick Joynt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

User:Jinnai is removing sources from articles that are written by Patrick Joynt at 1up.com.[41][42] He says we have a consensus that he's unreliable. Does this consensus really exist? All I could find were comments to this effect by User:Jinnai, himself. SharkD  Talk  21:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How do we know he's truly unreliable unless he's proven to have been so in the past? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose proving someone as reliable is somewhat straightforward given the policies we have and use, but have often wondered how you prove someone "unreliable". SharkD  Talk  04:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If a source isn't self-published then we shouldn't be deciding on the reliability of individual writers. We either trust 1UPs editorial process or not. Marasmusine (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He now questions whether journalists should be used at all for controversial topics. Any ideas? SharkD  Talk  02:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "nzgamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "nzgamer.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

See here. The site has been discussed a few times before[43][44], but there didn't seem to be much consensus regarding it, with people mostly being undecided. There are a number of Google News hits. SharkD  Talk  21:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

From their FAQ ("What is myNZGamer?") I see that the site allows members to publish their own reviews. Experimentally, I searched for the site's review on, for example, Halo 3, and the author is "Contributor". I don't know if this means a staff writer or a user. With self-published sites it's important that we know who the writer is per WP:SPS. Marasmusine (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Contributer" bit may just be a database error. Not sure though. You'd think that the name of the contributor would be listed regardless. Clicking on the link does take you to the staff page though. Also, reviews and blogs are under separate sub-domains, and "user" names tend to be pseudonyms compared to site staff, so it shouldn't be too hard to tell them apart. Very similar to user blogs at 1up.com. SharkD  Talk  20:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I hit the one review with erroneous attribution! The next review I checked identifies the author as a staff writer. As with the previous discussion, I'm okay with citing this as long as the individual writer has the appropriate credentials. Marasmusine (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Contributor usually means someone not on staff. It may be someone who the staff knows or it could be anyone.陣内_Jinnai 02:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I don't think there was ever any doubt about how to distinquish (for most articles) what was a staff article and what wasn't. It was about whether the site itself met, as a whole WP:SPS or WP:NEWSORG (as a mainstream video game news site like IGN or Gamespot).陣内_Jinnai 02:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "NTSC-uk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I'd like to recommend NTSC-uk to be added to the list of reliable review sources.

Here is the About Us page.

They were awarded website of the month by the UK games magazine Edge, a current trusted review source. Reviews and articles go through a thorough editorial process actioned by all members of the site's staff. They often review import and niche titles in addition to big name releases making them a valuable resource for these titles which often receive little to no coverage elsewhere. Their alumni includes well known professional reviews such as Lesley Smith.

Some sample reviews: Blacklight Dux Folklore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackolanternjim (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very dubious as to the professional status of the staff. This seems to be an 'on the side' website, with staffers not running the site professionally, but rather as a hobby. Lesley Smith seems to be the only member that has any sort of professional background. Also not included as a reviewer at GameRankings, which typically has slightly more stringent acceptance policies than Metacritic. --Teancum (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a few red flags: self-publication, "created by fans for fans" and lack of prior publishing history amongst the staff. (There's an overuse of the word "very" in those reviews, suggesting lack of editorial experience). Use WP:SPS and only cite pieces authored by established experts. Marasmusine (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Blacklight review uses the word 'very' four times in an article of length in excess of 1,400 words, Dux uses it only once and Folklore only twice. Authors do not self-publish their articles, there is a dedicated editorial staff. The site generates a modest turnover which is in turn used to acquire import titles for reviewers, beyond those provided to the site by the publishers. Perhaps worthy of submission to the Situational Sources listing then?Jackolanternjim (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with User:Marasmusine. It comes down to the fact that these are not professional reviewers with established experience in the industry. Its a site "created by fans for fans" - as well kept and as nice looking as the reviews are, it just doesn't change the fact that the staff are not professionals, but fans doing their very best to provide reviews. I wish the site well, but I don't see it passing as reliable whatsoever. --Teancum (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[45] - He appears to be very well-qualified in discussing video games, in particular speaking at the Penny-Arcade Expo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he used to write for Maximum PC ([46]), and Gamespy ([47]) and has had a number of speaking engagements. I would say he satisfies WP:SPS (with the usual caveats.) Marasmusine (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I see though, other writers contribute to the site, so it should be listed as situational (unless someone forms the "reliable authors" section proposed earlier). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I know VGChartz tends to divide people but I really think they need to be handled better than just listing them as unreliable.

VGChartz is now the VGChartz Network, made up of a series of sub-sites:

- VGChartz (sales figures) - gamrFeed (general gaming news) - gamrReview (reviews / previews) - gamrConnect (forums / community)

From that point of view, gamrFeed is as reliable and trustworthy as any other gaming blog - Kotaku, Joystiq etc. It has its own team of writers and editors and covers a range of material including editorials, interviews, show coverage and so on.

At the same time, gamrReview has a totally seperate team of reviewers and writers and their opinions of the games themselves are as valid as any other.

Then on the topic of the sales themselves, while they aren't deemed 100% reliable, typically figures from a game that has been out for 6 months or more has been checked against other sources of data including manufacturer shipments and numbers from NPD / GFK etc and is considered reliable.

My suggestion would be to list gamrFeed (http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com) and gamrReview (http://gamrReview.vgchartz.com) as situational sources much like other blogs etc and keep VGChartz in unreliable for the time being, pending further discussion on the matter.

--TadjHolmes (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Might post a link to this on the main page as this would be a major shift in how we've viewed VGChartz.陣内_Jinnai 19:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not as simple as a blog doing reviews of video games. Kotaku has some reliable figures that contribute - Stephen Totilo, for example. In looking at some of the news editors, the only thing I notice that's different from the main staff - of which only one person has written in anything published (and not one that specializes in video games), the only thing telling is that no credentials are listed. This tells me that no one there is worth listing credentials for. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems to be weekend warriors running a site they love. Great for fans of the site, but there is no professional experience in the staff, nor is there a "home base" address at which a professional company would reside. --Teancum (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Everybody has to start somewhere and the site has undergone some major editorial changes, shifting away from the once PS3/Wii skewed to a fair and balanced news reporting. The gamrReview site is also used on GameRankings now and the site received numerous review copies from developers and publishers. While news should never be sourced from a blog unless that blog does an exclusive interview, it appears their review staff has gained a lot of credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havokclix (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't defined that way unfortunately. Please see WP:RS. --Teancum (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support How are you defining "professional experience"? Looking at the gamrFeed[48] and gamrReview[49] team pages, the two senior editors both have prior experience - Chris Arnone for Wizard Magazine and others (as the videogame writer)[50][51] and Nick Simberg for Gamer Limit [52][53]. Other writers also work for other blogs - Peter Eykemans is now senior editor for DIYgamer[54] and IGN sites [55], Chris Matulich and Jamie Obeso are regular writers on Gamer Limit [56][57], Dan Crabtree for GamerNode [58], Joseph Jackmovich is also a professional games journalist.[59]. Original gamrFeed work (i.e non-VGChartz, nothing to do with game sales) has been cited by numerous sites including major news organisations. [60][61][62][63][64][65]. Seems to be plenty of evidence of professional experience to me.92.28.197.234 (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You could only use Chris' opinions if they are sourced from Wizard, not VG Chartz. It assumes notability in him, when clearly his notability comes from the magazine he writes for exclusively. Gamer Limit is not considered a reliable source; DIYGamer is not considered a reliable source; same as above, his work on IGN would only be usable if cited through IGN; GamerNode is not considered a reliable source. It's also disconcerting that the recent push for VG Chartz came after the web master for the entire site requested it; in fact, the fact that one of the users, TadjHolmes, is clearly linked to the site deeply (having the copyright to the site cited to him at one point), it comes off to me as a strange little campaign to spam it, which will likely result in a full blacklisting of the web site. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It is strange that the same 5-6 users (New Age Retro Hippie, Teancum, Smartse, Falcon9x5, Masem, Megata Sanshiro and who knows how many of those are duplicate accounts) are the ones who report and comment on everything VGChartz-related as well. Whether the other sites listed are considered a reliable source or not, they are evidence that the staff consist of professional writers which is what was asked for. Writing for an IGN site or Wizard magazine makes the writer professional therefore Seems to be weekend warriors running a site they love is an incorrect analysis (and also a personal opinion). Also, the discussion was about adding gamrFeed as a situational source like Kotaku and Joystiq not as a reliable source like GameSpot or IGN. The discussion on meatpuppetry should remain on that page and not this 92.28.197.234 (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are more than free to report us at WP:SOCK if you feel that we're one user abusing multiple accounts, however you'll find that we're responding because we've been notified of a potential issue and so have watchlisted said pages for changes not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. It's not a personal thing - there are lots of good review/video game sites out there that aren't professional game sites. Each individual site has to establish its own reliability, other sites who reference them can assist in establishing it, but it can only add to established reliability. To be civil I think the updates to VG Chartz and its network are awesome, but the team has no professional editorial experience. IGN (since that seems to be the common example here) has writers with an education in journalism or similar topics, several combined years of journalistic experience, a physical address that these folks go to work at every day (indicating it's their profession and not only a hobby), and several years of established reliability in the industry. So their editors can make the judgment call to cite VGChartz selectively. I feel kinda bad, but there are several sites with non-professionals doing professional quality work that just don't pass reliability guidelines as well. I personally use these sites, but Wikipedia has more stringent standards. Don't take it personally. --Teancum (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for such a civil response. In reply to your points - the gamrFeed team is a young team, writing for gamrFeed 'is' their professional experience in most cases. That said, several members have previous positions in professional organizations including IGN, Wizard Magazine and so on and the most senior staff - Chris Arnone, Nick Simberg and Joe Jackmovich all have professional journalism qualifications. As for hard addresses, VGChartz itself has a fixed address but the staff work from home - no different to Joystiq, Kotaku and other gaming blogs with a sattelite staff such as this. The fact that the site has a defined editorial structure, 3 years of article publishing, team members with prior experience at other publications should be enough as far as I can see it for the site to be listed as a situational source like any other gaming blog. The standards set for these things do seem fairly arbitrary - if gamrFeed were to recruit two writers from IGN tomorrow they would suddenly become reliable? Thanks again for your response. 92.28.197.234 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the reliability standards can seem somewhat muddy to understand. I will say that at this point it might be best to look at the individuals that you mentioned and see if their background qualifies them individually as reliable. That could allow for gamrReview to be used as a situational source, similar to Kotaku (where certain contributing editors are not to be used as they have no background in journalism). On a totally different note - Nick Pantazis - an IUPUI student? Awesome, I work for IUPUI as a programmer. Go Cougars! --Teancum (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously I am from the side who feel that the senior writers are reliable given their backgrounds and experience so where do we go from here? How is a writer with no formal qualifications in journalism ever supposed to demonstrate reliablity? 92.28.197.234 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty absurd question. How does anyone become reliable? They get formal qualifications in journalism. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 13:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as that absurd. So spending three years doing a college degree is the only way to demonstrate professionalism in a field? 92.28.197.234 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that having a professional doctor is a great thing (they go through college for even longer than a journalist does). Why would journalism be any different? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 13:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor example really. Saving a life and writing about something are two slightly different things. That said, if a doctor had trained on the job and gained their skills without a formal qualification does that not make them professional? Does an actor need a professional acting qualification to be considered an actor or would their appearance in 20 Hollywood films suffice? 92.28.197.234 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The most worrisome aspect of the whole situation is that even if it does prove to be usable in certain situations, the recent uprising of users spamming the link could lead to it being blacklisted. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 13:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it best to continue discussion here before encouraging users to place reviews in articles. (I'm not saying anyone currently is) In fact, it may be best for a VG Chartz admin to post a notice on the forums asking folks to wait to post reviews and other links from the VG Chartz network until a consensus is made, stating something along the lines of "we're currently working with Wikipedia" or something. That way the site does not get blacklisted for spam. In the meantime I think it might be best if New Age Retro Hippie and I ask for additional Wikipedia members, including admins, to chime in here. --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here. My Wikipedia username is Havokclix (currently under investigation for sockpuppeting, which I didn't even know what that was) and I am Chris M. Arnone, Managing Editor for gamrFeed. I wasn't trying to spam a link, I was unfamiliar with this page until repeatedly trying to get a link approved. There will be no VGC links posted until this issue is resolved, and I'm very glad it's being looked at in a fair-minded way. Obviously I'm a bit biased, so I'll thank you all for this discussion and back out of it. --Havokclix (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated that you came out and were honest about your identity, but regardless of whether it's a reliable source or not, it's pretty bad form to put your web site as a source when you're involved in writing it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I stand for VG Chartz, because it has been proven only to be detrimental in its Sales Charts (which to be honest, I don't even go to VGC for sales at all, even as a gamer). These new sections, gamrFeed and gamrReview, appear harmless as their words weigh the same as any other review or news post by any other major commercial rating site (like IGN, GameSpot, etc.). We should try to keep any external link that applies to its sales figure sections from being in any article. We won't be able to blacklist the "vgchartz.com" url unless we block everything but if we as editors take the initiative to recognize the good URLs (with the ".gamrfeed" and ".gamrreview") from the bad URLs (that do not include ".gamrfeed" and ."gamrReview") as they are added to articles, we will be able to be the filter between factual knowledge to the real world, through Wikipedia. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...wish we could get the blacklist filter software to allow more selective targeting.

Anyway I think we could go with a trial basis moving them to a situational source similar to Kotaku except for their sales ratings which should remain as unreliable statistics until further proof can be brought to show otherwise. If people seem to respect that and don't spam the site and ignore the part about not being reliable for sources then that's fine. If they don't well...陣内_Jinnai 04:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently, all the numbers posts are published under the gamrFeed url. We're working on getting these to come up purely as vgchartz urls, making it easier for Wikipedia editors to note the difference between the three sites.--Havokclix (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Link: http://www.onrpg.com/ I couldn't see this site on the page, so I thought it might be good to mention it. I've seen it mentioned a few times by other sites as I've browsed the web. If the site itself is not reliable, what its interviews (e.g. http://www.onrpg.com/MMO/Dragon-Fable/interview/DragonFable-update-interview-The-Lost-Content)? Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to make my mind up about onrpg. It would be a useful source if found reliable - possibly lending notability to several MMO games for which we have deleted articles. It is owned by SPIL Games BV ( Bloomberg profile) who operate several game portals, which is a good sign. The reviews, in my opinion, are poorly written (Last Chaos for example). They also also develop games, so it might be worth investigating potential conflict of interest. Marasmusine (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there anywhere we can find credentials for the site staff? If we can, then it will be a lot more reliable. Even if we decide not to trust them, what of their interviews with official people? Even the interviews alone would greatly help notability. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just read this ONRPG review of Adventure Quest. Despite being from a staff writer, it shows appalling grammar and style. ("I would recommend you all to try it out, because it doesn’t take long to get ingame at all and it is noobfriendly, so definitely worth a try! " - good grief. In other places it reads like an advert.) I'm wondering if they have any editors at all. I want to put this on the "unreliable" list. Opinions? Marasmusine (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the game being reviewed is AdventureQuest Worlds, AdventureQuest is something much different. While the reviews might be unreliable, which I haven't looked into but are currently viewing as unreliable, what about the News or Interviews. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake, but the issue is the same. I took another look at the DragonFable interview. The lead paragraphs screams "PR piece" to me. And hmm, it's the same author as the above review. As I say above, we really do need a good website that covers the multitude of online games, but I've seen enough of OnRPG now to not trust it. Marasmusine (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the sources I put from AdventureQuest Worlds. While they seemed to helped prove some notability at the time they now seem to... suck. Besides, the IGN sources probably prove enough notability to not risk the article being deleted anyway. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose - I'd agree that a good RPG site is needed, but like Marasmusine I'd say the editorial process isn't up to snuff. --Teancum (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wish I could support, but not being able to find out anything about editorial staff and policy, and article quality suggesting little to no editing is actually going on, says no. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "The Video Game Critic" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki

Hello, I have recently written two articles on Atari Games (Revenge of the Beefsteak Tomatoes, Brain Games) and will continue with more. Upon researching, many games from this era lack any formal reviews and game descriptions outside of what the manual might say. A useful site I have come across is The Video Game Critic. I would like to get feedback on whether or not this site is suitable for use (hopefully soon, a DYK I submitted may be dependent on it!) Anyway, game descriptions and opinions are sparse for many Atari titles, and while it would certainly be nice to use the sites letter grade reviews, I am not opposed to waving that. However, I do believe that using the site simply as a source for gameplay description is harmless, as well as for opinion. It is used for nearly 200 articles on WP, which doesn't support it's reliability of course, but rather a potential need for information on relatively obscure titles. Bad point to make, I know. Anyway, let me know what you think, thank you. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, good work with your contributons. VGC is a self-published source, so we need to demonstrate that the author is an "expert in his field". I'm not sure who writes VGC - the only name I can see is "Dave". I would stick to published sources like Atari User or Retro Gamer. Marasmusine (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look through them. How do you feel about using VGC simply for gameplay? - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One would normally use the primary source (the game itself) to describe gameplay - do you mean instances where you do not have access to the game itself? Again, use the published magazines where possible, otherwise I don't think using VGC will be controversial if you are being plainly factual. Marasmusine (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that using a source that isn't reliable for an opinion is worth using (or even acceptable) for statements of fact. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to remove IGN and GameStop's forums from appearing in searches? This would make things 1000x easier. Also, don't say "Just put in -forums and -boards", because that removes other pages that aren't forums or boards just because they mention it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing I do is add -show_msgs to my search. That eliminates several PHP forums. Not everything gets killed off, but it's specific enough to remove those specific forums without their parent site. --Teancum (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You could also try -inurl:forums and -inurl:boards, that catches those words just in the page URL and not in the page content. Anomie⚔ 21:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

you can talk to the creator about that, but I think he's wary of blanket removals unless its clear a RS is never found there (ie it would never (in theory) satisfy WP:SPS. I think he might be okay with removing those forums, but the problem is there's no easy way to do it with google's search engine code (at least last time I asked ~6montsh - year ago) without killing the entire site or applying those restrictions across the entire web (which almost certainly would miss info that would pass SPS.陣内_Jinnai 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're using Google, it depends on the URL. If the URL is, for example, "http://www.GameStop.com/Forums/" you can exclude it. I have my own search engine, and I've tried hard to try to elimate this sort of problem. You can try it here and let me know if you have any problems. If it's URL-based, I can certainly exclude from mine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will use the "-inurl:forums and -inurl:boards" idea. Also, I meant to say GameSpot not GameStop. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think posting those suggestions on the main page should be done. I'll be doing that elsewhere.陣内_Jinnai 06:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

While investigating an issue on Talk:Hydrophobia (video game) I dug a bit deeper into the matter. It seems there was some controversy on the negative reviews involving Dark Energy Digital, Sterling and other reviewers. Read the ARS Techinica article here. Then I started to look at who kept reporting this big fiasco in the game article, and sure enough it was two IPs [135] [136] belonging to the same provider. Even though both IP edits seem to be single-purpose, I couldn't tie them, so I started looking into both the offending reviewers and Dark Energy Digital. After some digging, I found reports of Sterling stating he finished a game, giving it a terrible review, and then it being uncovered that he never actually finished the game. He later admitted to such, albeit with a rebuttal. So that marked the Hydrophobia and Final Fantasy XIII reviews as off --- then I found more. Alpha Protocol, despite having ~65% approval, was rated 2/10 by Sterling [137]. Crackdown 2, which has a 71.36% at GameRankings [138], was rated 2/10 by Sterling [139]. Blacklight: Tango Down, which averages 67.78% at GR, was rated 3/10 by him [140]. Eve Online [141] suffered a similar fate, with aggregates over 75%, but Sterling's review getting a 4/10 [142]. Vanquish (video game) is yet another example. Averaging ~85% at GameRankings, [143] Sterling gave it a 5/10 [144].

Some of these I can forgive, but there's a pattern here. As man and a reviewer he's entitled to his opinion, but given the evidence I trust Sterling about as far as I can throw him, and given the evidence, I don't think we should. --Teancum (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I know the Kane & Lynch 2 review was a 1/10 or 2/10 too, though I don't know if Sterling reviewed that. I'd be wary of excluding a particular reviewer based on his review scores (though I on there's a consensus on THE INTERNET that he's not the best reviewer) - I imagine writers for official magazines and "big" websites often score games higher than average (but not high enough to skew the average, if you know what I mean). Thanks! Fin©™ 21:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this guy actually notable himself? Destructoid's usually a situational source anyhow, and especially for bigger games there are going to be better sources and better reviews to use anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW The first link I checked, Crackdown 2, was rated 4.5 (not 2), which is described as "below average". Sterling seems to be using the Amiga Power school of rating, so there will be a dissonance with aggregate scores where an "average" game rates around 7. However, our critical reception sections should be examining specific criticisms rather than scores, and the best reviewers should be providing balanced information on a game's pros and cons. Sterling does seem to be overwhelmingly critical in these reviews, and the few compliments tend to be backhanded. Is he being critical just for the sake of it? Is he trying to pull off a Ben Croshaw / Stuart Campbell type persona? What are his positive reviews like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs)

Just as a clarification, the first link is a review for Alpha Protocol, not Crackdown 2. --Teancum (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps all of you should get off your high horses. I'm not even a Jim Sterling fan, but Destructoid and by extension Jim Sterling have a large viewer base. Thus, they deserve to be included in the reception of a game, yes, even when Jim Sterling is reviewing. Because he has a different opinion than many other sources, you seek to eliminate Destructoid from reliable sources. Citing the same opinion over and over for a game doesn't properly illustrate what a game's reception is and neither does simply putting a metacritic score. Do you really want to remove dissenting opinion from the reception of a game? What makes an IGN or Gamespot review better than a Destructoid or Giant Bomb review. Your opinion should not be Wikipedia law! 76.17.128.165 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Popularity is not used as a deciding factor in virtually any discussion. It doesn't matter if he's popular, it's if he's notable or otherwise meets the criteria of WP:SPS and the more general reliable source guidelines. Destructoid has only very rarely been admissible as a source at WP:FAC, so scrutinizing its use is perfectly acceptable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea we were talking about Featured Articles. Whether a Destructoid article is picked to be featured, I could care less about. As far as reception of a game goes, I dare say popularity does play a factor. While certainly editorial integrity plays a larger role, the references mentioned, Alpha Protocol, Crackdown 2, etc. are an opinion. It's very difficult to be regarded as an expert reviewer as you can't much get a graduate degree in reviewing. A review is in opinion, face the facts. IGN and GameSpot may have editorial policies in place, but they are respected by you guys (The Wikipedia GateKeepers) because they have a large viewer base. Much of the criticism of Jim Sterling as a reviewer comes from those who disagree with him. This criticism is not brought up because he is a poor reviewer, he just takes a stance and people don't like it. Again, a review is an EDUCATED OPINION. Certainly it isn't fanboyism, but a review is not a scholarly research article. Also, he's clearly notable, he has been reviewing a lot of games for a long time. Please tell how his reviews don't meet the same standard that IGN reviews or GameSpot reviews do. Disagreement with the norm is not a valid reason, and not finishing a game, well a lot of reviewers don't finish all games. So again please tell me how other than the fact Destructoid is not owned by a corporate entity how Destructoid's review are less credible than IGN's,GamesRadar's, etc. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps other reviewers don't finish their games - but we don't know that for a fact. If we do find that to be fact then they should be brought up in the same manner as Sterling has been. Nobody's questioning the style of his reviews, but rather the false claim that he made in saying he finished the game, then clearly had not. After more digging I saw a pattern, and brought it for discussion. If it was a situation where the false statement wasn't exposed I probably wouldn't care, though I'd still find it odd. Again, if there's proof of other reviewers stating they finished a game and not finishing it, those should be brought up on their own. I brought this up as a trustworthy source - his skewed reviews on the typical scale are just possible additional evidence and aren't the focus here. --Teancum (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is the link to him stating that he completed the game? You say there are many reports. There is a twitter post saying he was finished with the game because the last chapter is bad. Guess what, that could mean he was just done playing it not that he completed the game. His rebuttal just says that his review fell within Destructoid's review standards. While I would agree that lying that you have completed is not good and would damage credibility, I don't see any evidence that he did that. I'm glad you say that the skewed reviews aren't the focus here; I addressed that because that did seem to be a majority of your post. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We can split hairs and call it fuzzy - however on the flipside here he states "Just beat Hydrophobia. I'm so relieved I won't even make fun of how awful the "ending" was." --Teancum (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it splitting hairs, these are serious accusations questioning a reviewer's credibility. Where is the evidence that he has not finished Hydrophobia. The link you have says that he hasn't completed FF13 and Army of 2: The 40th Day. It seems as if you are clinging to this argument or you just don't like the guy. You say he lies about completing games, yet have no solid evidence. And then say he reviews games ... would incorrectly be the right word? Please provide evidence to support your claims. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I should be clear - I definitely do have issue with his reviews, but I don't have issue with his news posts, which I quite often use. I think the guy's full of himself, but will admit he's got the occasional good point. It's not often that reviewers get called out for being untruthful - lying is probably a bit uncivil to say here - and I felt that should be brought to attention. Though he's accused by DED of not finishing the game, I don't know that he's ever openly admitted such, however the Final Fantasy situation just raises the question again. In the end it'll always be a he-said-she-said situation, but I brought it up because those sorts of things are ultimately what will make a reference questionably reliable. I guess my point is that if media elsewhere is questioning his reliability then it's something that will inevitably be an issue here. --Teancum (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A fine point about him not finishing FF and that could lead someone to believe he hasn't finished other games. However, there is no journalistic standard amongst reviewers or Wikipedia (that I know of) that requires game completion. I believe that it was an editor from Wired that said at a PAX panel in 2010 that a reviewer doesn't always need to play a game to completion to know it's bad; a reviewer need only complete up to which he/she believes a sane person would. I bring this up just to show that it is not only Jim Sterling who holds the belief that a reviewer doesn't necessarily need to finish a game to review it. As to my knowledge DED has not accused Jim Sterling of not completing Hydrophobia (they just said he didn't play it correctly). They did accuse EDGE of not completing the game. As far as media reporting that Jim Sterling did not complete Hydrophobia, I know of no sources that reported this. Please provide them if you have them. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the point is that he has received negative media attention and not just for his overly critical reviewers, but for the perceived dishonesty. That's why I brought him up for discussion. My personal opinion on how he handles things is irrelevant, and in fact was the reason I brought it to the table - I felt that the fact that I find him frustrating and arrogant meant that I couldn't make a clear judgment; that and Wikipedia runs on general consensus anyway. --Teancum (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

He received negative attention from one source. One article that seems very much like an editorial, which is fine I guess, but the attention was hardly pervasive. Great, bring it up for discussion, and prepare to have people tear it down, especially when if applied, your suggestion would take away from the information given in the reception section. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's Jim Sterling's Deadly Premonition review, which he gave a 10. [145] He actually calls the game bad on multiple occasions, and doesn't make any attempt to refute those claims. He accepts that it's bad, terrible even, but goes on to give it a perfect score. I don't know about his reliability, but he does seem to have a peculiar way of reviewing games that sets him apart from pretty much every other reviewer. Reach Out to the Truth 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that editors are just going to have to follow WP:WEIGHT when it comes to his reviews. If his review is a major outlier compared to others, reasoning would need to be given for inclusion. So if he's more critical than other reviewers, perhaps a bit of his commentary as to why would give his inclusion due weight. Still, his style just -- I dunno, seems strange. It's one thing to have an opinion, but he's often all over the place and it just feels odd. --Teancum (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is generally held for scientific views and the news. The earth is flat is one where WP:WEIGHT comes into play and rightfully so. However, we are dealing with opinion here. The reviews are not created after hundreds of hours of research as in science. If reaction to a game is mostly positive, it will be listed in reception following WP:WEIGHT. We need to strive for balance also a part of Wikipeda's policies. I agree that the score should not just be listed, but that is for nearly all cases because that doesn't properly detail the reception of the game. Also, what happens if a reviewer at another site is more critical than the average reviewer for the game, must we detail the reason for their inclusion as well or do we only detail groupthink. It would seem that Jim Sterling's negative reaction to a game would be a reason for its inclusion. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Weight applies to any case where a summary of different viewpoints are put together. For video games, it is often not a problem as game scores often tend to +/- 10% of an average score, so favoring one review over another really doesn't harm an article in that manner. However, when one reputable source has a significantly different score, we cannot spend that much time on that one outlier though certainly can build discussion of it. A case in point is Civilization V which has been universally praised by critics - except from 1UP.com (a reputable source), which is actually comparable to the popular opinion of users on forums. We can highlight the negatives from the 1UP review, likely connecting them with commentary from the more positive views that waves away such issues as serious problems, but we cannot spend the time to isolate the 1UP review and use it only to ID the negatives of the game.

But this is where reputable sources come into play. If a game gets great reviews exception from "Steve GR8 Gaming Zite!" which scores it negatively, we can review that non-reputable review and see if points it mentions are repeated in the reputable sources and use those sources to contrast the review. But using the review to highlight the negatives would be a WEIGHT problem. This is the likely case of Sterling's reviews. There's not reputation with them (due to the noted inconsistencies) so we shouldn't be using them, but certainly can be considering the points raised, translating them to the reputable reviews and writing from that point. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What inconsistencies are you talking about? The not finishing a game (I've already addressed this) or the deviation from the norm on scores? You do realize Jim Sterling is not a troll or something. He has an opinion like every other reviewer. If an IGN reviewer were to give a game a lower score than the norm, would you exclude the review? They both have review standards. If Jim Sterling were the only reviewer to give a certain game a bad score I would agree. For example if he gave Uncharted 2 a 4 while EVERY other reviewer gives it an 8 or higher. However, in all cases mentioned there were other negative reviews, he was not alone. We shouldn't hide negativity about a game just because GameSpot, IGN, 1UP, GameTrailers liked the game. They are not the end all be all of the reception of a game. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your condescension of Destructoid is much appreciated by the way. It's not as if it is some fly-by-the-night personal website like you make it out to be. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You picking out the 1UP review is most interesting because that review is part of the reception category like it should be. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two problem with Sterling: 1) Destructoid, unless they're not mentioning it, does not appear to have editorial controls, a necessity for a site to be considered reliable. Of course, when you are talking about reviews - primarily opinions - that's not as critical, but that leads to the second point: 2) Sterling has no accreditation that I can easily see to explain why his opinion is as good as a reviewer from a professional-edited site, and thus we have no idea why his opinion matters any more than the average player. Now, I know someone could point out "hey, what about new hires at IGN who start with no accreditation..." to which I point back to #1, editorial control; newer reviews will learn the ropes there and thus because of the control, we can consider the reviews reputable. It is not (necessarily) because Sterling's scores fall off the mark - as noted, he's on the Amiga Power scale where 5 is actually average and that throws the curve off. This also explains why 1UP's review of Civ V is included because it is an established reputable source and thus that opinion is valid. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is Destructoid's review guide. [[146]] While this does not fall into an editorial policy for non-reviews, my argument is solely about reviews. He cannot post anything he wants to post. If you need more information, here is v1 of their review guide. [[147]] If you look at them, you will see that their guide is pretty similar to IGN's review guide. [[148]]. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Review guides are a different beast than normal editing policies. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A link to IGN's editing policies outside of their review guide, please. The review guide is an editorial policy for the reviews. It tells how a review will be written, what the scores mean, basically the entire process of reviewing. So NO it isn't a different beast; it simply is an editorial policy for a specific type of editorial. 76.17.128.165 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

While not having anything to do with reviews, there's an air of unprofessionalism that bothers me at time with Sterling. Truthfully I agree with what he's saying sometimes, but at times he handles criticism unprofessionally. While not the log that would light the fire, it's certainly a small log that can help it continue to burn. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't conduct himself in a calm manner when responding to situations and criticism from other outlets in the media. The site is big enough that the ranting and biting back at his critics seems rather "Howard Stern". Then there's the minor claims of copying him [149]. As if he created such a trend? Again, not a deal-breaking situation alone, but something that adds to a difficult situation. --Teancum (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)