This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
During his source review, czar has brought these sites' reliability into question. None of them are listed at WP:VG/RS one way or the other, so I'm bringing them here for input. They all look reasonably professional to me, but hey, that's a fairly superficial marker, especially in today's era of web design for all. A Games Asylum article written by a Retro Gamer writer is being used for information about Sonic X toys, a GamesFirst! review is being used for reception, and the other two are to bolster the appearance of the phrase "gotta go fast" in gaming periodicals outside the explicit context of Sonic. I don't feel too strongly about any of them, but all things being equal I'd prefer more coverage for the topic to less. Tezero ( talk) 03:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, Freedom Planet isn't urgent but this is a current FAC and it's going to be archived eventually if no one ever decides on these. I'm sorry if it sounded like I just wanted confirmation for my own thoughts; that wasn't my intent. If you don't think any of these are reliable, that's fine, if you can explain why. I just want some kind of communal decision on each of them so I know what the Reception section should look like if this is to become an FA. Tezero ( talk) 02:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Reminder: Inside Gaming Daily and GameBreaker are only used in the Sonic X article to attest media usage of the phrase "gotta go fast", not for reliable news coverage.
Guys, please tell me I'm blind or something. I can't find the date of this article's publication. [1] The article's body references "today". It says basically that was originally announced for the end of the year, but then delayed until March 1998, so I can deduce that it was written sometime in 1997. Bonus points if you can find a copy of the referenced Reuters press release, or tell me how to do so. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Altergamer" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
Not to be confused with "Altered Gamer," which I also brought up here. The "about" section is just soapboxing. "Write for AlterGamer" says for prospective writers "All your articles will be checked by an editor, and we will give you our suggestions before posting" for whatever that may be worth. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 23:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources:
"Gamerscape" –
news ·
books ·
scholar ·
images –
VGRS ·
WPVG Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
CrossWiki ·
LinkTo
Find video game sources:
"Meristation" –
news ·
books ·
scholar ·
images –
VGRS ·
WPVG Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
CrossWiki ·
LinkTo
Find video game sources:
"Nerd Reactor" –
news ·
books ·
scholar ·
images –
VGRS ·
WPVG Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
CrossWiki ·
LinkTo
Not as urgent as the above as this isn't at GAN yet, but I need to know which of these sites, if any, are usable so I can write an appropriately organized Reception section. They're all reviews; none of them are listed at WP:VG/RS and I have no further information to class them as reliable or unreliable except that Meristation is a (the only, actually) review linked from Metacritic. Tezero ( talk) 20:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
1, 2 and 3. Any final objections or is it ready for inclusion in RS? Barring serious discourse I'll probably add it by the end of the day. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Gamesided" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
Unreliable - I would actually like us to list this as unreliable. Looking at the about section, its staff seems to be an unprofessional bunch (save for a couple people) and its more of an afterthought for a much larger sports network site. It has a few references. Please discuss. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 18:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Unreliable -I ve not seen this site come up. But I have no scruples on it coming on the unreliable list. From the About itself. "We aren't called FanSided for nothing. Our network of sports, entertainment and lifestyle sites are powered by fans that want to cover their passions! Whether you are just looking to get your start in online media or you want to contribute to your favorite site as a hobby, FanSided wants to hear from you." The only reliable source from the staff might be Mytheos Holt, as he seems to have some credit under his belt. However, that is still pretty shaky. So seems very unreliable. NathanWubs ( talk) 12:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This site was raised by me at the talk page for the Anita Sarkeesian article because of a three-part piece Mytheos Holt did criticizing her work. Serenity appears to have taken this dispute here without informing me or anyone else involved in it. What was noted in that discussion is that the editors of a given site on Fansided have full editorial control and GameSided's specific opinion policy was also raised. From what I can tell, sites listed as unreliable here traditionally feature user-submitted content and have no editorial policies. Neither of these things appear to be true of GameSided. Writers have to submit an application and be approved by the editor so these are not simply people who register an account and start posting pieces.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a new sort of site arising which has less of a barrier to entry but still maintains its standards through editorial processes, and I'd count gamesided among these. I'd consider these reliable at least as opinion. Willhesucceed ( talk) 17:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Tech Crunch" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
It's a general tech site, owned by AOL, which also occasionally covers the meatier video games industry topics. The About page has all you'll want to know. Although they print "thought pieces and other types of articles", they seem to be intent on being factual and fairly thorough.
There's no reason not to consider them reliable, right? Willhesucceed ( talk) 14:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about the sourcing used in The Punisher (1993 video game) up for discussion at WT:VG#Punisher sourcing czar ♔ 20:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we should include APGNation as a reliable source for video games, as recent discussion shows a consensus to use it (see 1, 2). There's one editor concerned with using it for BLPs, but that's a concern to be shared for all sources in the list - each source that is reliable for the project should be independently assessed for claims not related to video games. Diego ( talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Maximum: The Video Game Magazine" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk
Not sure about this one. It was published in the UK in 1995-96. It ran only seven issues, which suggests that circulation was low, but it was published by EMAP, the editor was Richard Leadbetter (of Sega Saturn Magazine), and more than one of their staff seem to be established journalists. Notable/reliable source or no?-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "TechRaptor" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
TechRaptor is a general technology and gaming site that's existed for two years. It has an editor, and a large and varied staff. It has an ethics policy, and a privacy policy, which speaks to their professionalism; link. They've had interviews with bigwig developers like CDProjekt, up-and-comers like Daniel Vavra, and others, so they're noteworthy in the video game industry, at least. They've also been referenced by CinemaBlend. I've been reading them for about two months now and I haven't noticed anything incorrect or willfully false being published.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to provide as proof. An easy way for others to verify that they're reliable would be to crosscheck random news articles with other sites that report on the same events and subjects.
Willhesucceed ( talk) 17:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I found http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51966824_Cheaters_in_the_Steam_Community_Gaming_Social_Network which contains a large amount of research on cheats and Valve Anti-Cheat. The author is Jeremy Blackburn.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Lost Levels" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
I vaguely recall removing this site from articles in the past, but here's the deal: it's a site on game history run by Frank Cifaldi, whose pedigree includes senior editor at 1UP and publication in other game rags. I don't see a guarantee of reliability at the about page but what are your thoughts on using it as a situational source? czar ♔ 17:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Erik Kain recently did a live stream discussion on Youtube with Greg Tito, Janelle Bonanno, and John Bain, all important figures in the video games press.
This video was linked to from Forbes in an article Erik Kain did for them.
I know it's an unconventional source whose technical RS-ness it's possible to debate (pro: linked to from Forbes, by a respected gaming journalist with some journalistic pedigree; con: linked to from Forbes blogs, which some argue is just a little better than self-publishing), but the guidelines for such things are exactly that, guidelines, and exceptions are allowed, since the goal, ultimately, is to ensure a quality encyclopaedia.
In this case, I'd argue that the strictures of the guidelines aside, this is de facto a reliable source since 1. it's unedited, so no shenanigans are possible, 2. it does have some oversight and structure, with Erik Kain fielding questions, and 3. it's industry peers addressing industry matters in a roundtable-style discussion, which is no different than a radio discussion or a TV news panel except for production values. As such, I'd like some acknowledgement here that it's a good source for the Gamergate article. He plans to make this a semi-regular thing, so we can discuss its general reliability at a later date.
Here it is for your consideration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmosgPNXmNc&feature=youtu.be
Willhesucceed ( talk) 17:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
He's written for Slate, Business Insider, The Week, Techonomy, and Mother Jones (which has been included in Mediaite). He's been quoted in The Atlantic. He's been in the Yale Law Journal.
Gamezone, Cinema Blend, Bright Side of News, International Business Times, and FMV have referenced him about video games or the industry. Yahoo! News and Hexun have referenced him about the video games industry. BBC Business Matters and HuffPost Live have interviewed him about Gamergate.
Edit: but wait, there's more: Kotaku, RockPaperShotgun, The Daily Dot, and Slate all referencing him, too.
It seems to me that if anyone's to be considered reliable at Forbes re: video games, it should be Kain. I'd like an acknowledgement of his special standing at the Forbes blogs as a de facto reliable source so that the list of reliable sources for video games can be updated appropriately. Willhesucceed ( talk) 03:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Those claims would never be left unqualified. It would have to be Erik Kain of X said Japanese games are not misogynistic (and even then, in what context?) Even if IGN was used in your examples above, we wouldn't care what a person at IGN thought apropos of nothing. If the question is whether Kain in some kind of involved figure whose opinion matters, it totally depends on the situation. No one commentator has blanket credibility to speak authoritatively about every issue. Furthermore, if a commentator's stance on such things mattered, an independent, secondary source would cover it. ( edit conflict) Can't say anything more about this without going in circles, so I'm exiting the conversation here. Kain is not "de facto reliable"—no one is czar ♔ 18:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Impressive list. Let me know if anyone has any questions about Polish-language websites. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
We need more international sources.
That is all. Willhesucceed ( talk) 07:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Rev3Games" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
Bringing this one up again as there was no response last time. Pretty certain on this one's reliability, but it hasn't been listed yet. Owned by Discovery Digital Networks. About page reveals qualified executive team. Up until April this year, Adam Sessler (of RS G4 and X-Play) featured in much of the site's video-based content. CR4ZE ( t • c) 06:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the previous discussion.
I would like to request a statement from this WikiProject for the Sources guideline regarding JimmyBlackwing's essay, section "Fake it". The practice described in that section is not about obtaining digital copies of a source, but something that would lead to:
Magazine said that game was great. [fake1 1]
The game is great. [fake2 3]
{{
cite journal}}
: ref stripmarker in |at=
at position 11 (
help); ref stripmarker in |issue=
at position 3 (
help); ref stripmarker in |quote=
at position 19 (
help); ref stripmarker in |title=
at position 5 (
help)
84.127.80.114 ( talk) 07:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Basically it's a matter of reliance on third party sourcing. This is not ideal, but in a pinch it can work or it can be indistinguishable from actual verification. |
this WikiProject firmly believes that faking sources is an acceptable practice" and has done as he suggested above and sought advice elsewhere. Specifically he has crossposted at WT:CITE where he claims (now writing as 84.127.82.127) that from the above discussion "
It looks like this practice is acceptable in some situations". Editors there are now talking about community bans and immediate indefinite blocks. Just a heads up. - Thibbs ( talk) 17:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious what others think about industry awards like BÄM! and the European Games Award. These and similar awards seem to be cited across the project, but the links often lead to an advertisement-heavy or extremely basic website or even just to a press release. In other words, there appears to be little traction among third-party sources about these awards—except through publishing their press releases—and I'm thinking about cutting them back if others agree.
I found out about this via User:Goodgame, "the official account of the press office of Goodgame Studios". (I warned the "editor" about our username and conflict of interest policies in October and they haven't edited since.) It turns out that Goodgame Studios won a European Games Award and is also the main sponsor of the award. In fact, much of that article is supported by primary/press release sources, but it's not just that article. It just makes me wonder how many of these are legitimate awards, and how many are just another form of advertising that we should remove. Woodroar ( talk) 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Find out if VentureBeat is reliable, find out if DailyTech is reliable, find out if Tech Times is reliable, find out if Touch Arcade and find out if The Wall Street Journal is reliable. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 07:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Pak-GN" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
So I saw this website while checking up on Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes and I'm not sure if the site is reliable or not. example. GamerPro64 03:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen much agreement as to when ScrewAttack is a reliable source, but it doesn't seem to be very often. I do, however, know that one area commonly approved for situational sources is reception, especially accolades, and so I'd like to know if a ScrewAttack ranking would be appropriate for the Sonic Adventure 2 article as it's currently used. Opinions? Tezero ( talk) 23:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Trust in Play" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
I consider this source unreliable but I'd like second opinions since it's being used in a number of articles. Their About Us gives no indication of editorial or journalistic experience or credentials. I also can't find any indication that reliable sources are relying on or reposting their content. Opinions? Woodroar ( talk) 06:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Requested keep of the added information - YouTube is an unreliable source, with the exception if the video is part of the official account of a game or game's company. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 03:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Done Thank you for considering this request! Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Gamesauce" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
There was a thread about Gamesauce years ago with no real consensus on whether or not the magazine was reliable. Hopefully there can be one this time around. GamerPro64 20:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Extra Credits" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
Are Extra Credits videos usable in criticism sections? I'm asking because it's used in pages Call of Juarez: The Cartel, God of War II (dead Youtube link) and a bunch of other pages, not because I plan on using it myself. Also, I don't know if the link search will be useful, since most of the links seem to be Youtube videos. SonOfPlisskin ( talk) 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys. I don't mean to dump something in your laps, but you guys are just so amazin'. How does racketboy.com fare in evaluation? Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Gamnesia" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
There's quite a bit of information on here, but I'm not sure about its reliability. Its about page doesn't really clear things up, but the write for us page makes it seem like there's some degree of credibility, or at the least an interview to begin and then peer-reviewing for newer writers. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Do we have an exact checklist for verifying a RS, like there is for a WikiProject to verify "B quality"? I don't see one at WP:RS, amazingly. But then, that area doesn't have the awesome source list that this project has. Which I really think that it should, although I imagine the traffic would be enormous. Do we need to have a particular checklist, or should we focus on creating a generic one for WP:RS? I see you guys using some seriously impressive investigative journalistic principles behind it (many of which I never would have thought of, because some of you are professionals at it), and it could be codified like "B quality" is. If we had it that way, maybe there would be fewer occurences of people like me bugging the experts to do this for them, and more occurences of people following the guideline and simply publishing the results here for documentation and linking purposes. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
(bulleted text above added by Smuckola. - Thibbs ( talk) 13:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC))
The factors that go into weighing reliability of a source aren't a secret, and so to that extent I agree with the idea of increasing clarity for editors by listing some of the more common factors, but I don't think it would fit at WP:RS due to WP:RSCONTEXT. WP:RSN (the discussion board for WP:RS) and WT:VG/RS (the discussion board for WP:VG/RS) have different granulation to their respective foci. RSN is generally concerned with specific analysis of individual articles and VG/RS is generally concerned with broad analysis of publishers. Because of this RSN can help determine consensus on specific inclusions in the article (not quite a conclusive presumption with respect to the article) whereas VG/RS can only provide a rule of thumb (nothing more than a rebuttable presumption with respect to an article). WP:VG/RS is subsidiary to WP:RS. When there is conflict between the two, WP:RS controls. The reason WP:RS doesn't have an exact formula for determining reliability is because each source is treated individually so generalization is hard to achieve. A checklist seems more in line with a rule of thumb such as we have here at VG/RS. The only downside I can see is that a checklist might encourage gaming the system especially for newer users who don't grasp the distinction between VG/RS's use as a rule of thumb and the fact that WP:RS trumps WP:VG/RS. I'd be interested to hear what others think of the idea. - Thibbs ( talk) 13:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
During his source review, czar has brought these sites' reliability into question. None of them are listed at WP:VG/RS one way or the other, so I'm bringing them here for input. They all look reasonably professional to me, but hey, that's a fairly superficial marker, especially in today's era of web design for all. A Games Asylum article written by a Retro Gamer writer is being used for information about Sonic X toys, a GamesFirst! review is being used for reception, and the other two are to bolster the appearance of the phrase "gotta go fast" in gaming periodicals outside the explicit context of Sonic. I don't feel too strongly about any of them, but all things being equal I'd prefer more coverage for the topic to less. Tezero ( talk) 03:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, Freedom Planet isn't urgent but this is a current FAC and it's going to be archived eventually if no one ever decides on these. I'm sorry if it sounded like I just wanted confirmation for my own thoughts; that wasn't my intent. If you don't think any of these are reliable, that's fine, if you can explain why. I just want some kind of communal decision on each of them so I know what the Reception section should look like if this is to become an FA. Tezero ( talk) 02:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Reminder: Inside Gaming Daily and GameBreaker are only used in the Sonic X article to attest media usage of the phrase "gotta go fast", not for reliable news coverage.
Guys, please tell me I'm blind or something. I can't find the date of this article's publication. [1] The article's body references "today". It says basically that was originally announced for the end of the year, but then delayed until March 1998, so I can deduce that it was written sometime in 1997. Bonus points if you can find a copy of the referenced Reuters press release, or tell me how to do so. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Altergamer" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
Not to be confused with "Altered Gamer," which I also brought up here. The "about" section is just soapboxing. "Write for AlterGamer" says for prospective writers "All your articles will be checked by an editor, and we will give you our suggestions before posting" for whatever that may be worth. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 23:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources:
"Gamerscape" –
news ·
books ·
scholar ·
images –
VGRS ·
WPVG Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
CrossWiki ·
LinkTo
Find video game sources:
"Meristation" –
news ·
books ·
scholar ·
images –
VGRS ·
WPVG Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
CrossWiki ·
LinkTo
Find video game sources:
"Nerd Reactor" –
news ·
books ·
scholar ·
images –
VGRS ·
WPVG Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
CrossWiki ·
LinkTo
Not as urgent as the above as this isn't at GAN yet, but I need to know which of these sites, if any, are usable so I can write an appropriately organized Reception section. They're all reviews; none of them are listed at WP:VG/RS and I have no further information to class them as reliable or unreliable except that Meristation is a (the only, actually) review linked from Metacritic. Tezero ( talk) 20:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
1, 2 and 3. Any final objections or is it ready for inclusion in RS? Barring serious discourse I'll probably add it by the end of the day. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Gamesided" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
Unreliable - I would actually like us to list this as unreliable. Looking at the about section, its staff seems to be an unprofessional bunch (save for a couple people) and its more of an afterthought for a much larger sports network site. It has a few references. Please discuss. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 18:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Unreliable -I ve not seen this site come up. But I have no scruples on it coming on the unreliable list. From the About itself. "We aren't called FanSided for nothing. Our network of sports, entertainment and lifestyle sites are powered by fans that want to cover their passions! Whether you are just looking to get your start in online media or you want to contribute to your favorite site as a hobby, FanSided wants to hear from you." The only reliable source from the staff might be Mytheos Holt, as he seems to have some credit under his belt. However, that is still pretty shaky. So seems very unreliable. NathanWubs ( talk) 12:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This site was raised by me at the talk page for the Anita Sarkeesian article because of a three-part piece Mytheos Holt did criticizing her work. Serenity appears to have taken this dispute here without informing me or anyone else involved in it. What was noted in that discussion is that the editors of a given site on Fansided have full editorial control and GameSided's specific opinion policy was also raised. From what I can tell, sites listed as unreliable here traditionally feature user-submitted content and have no editorial policies. Neither of these things appear to be true of GameSided. Writers have to submit an application and be approved by the editor so these are not simply people who register an account and start posting pieces.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a new sort of site arising which has less of a barrier to entry but still maintains its standards through editorial processes, and I'd count gamesided among these. I'd consider these reliable at least as opinion. Willhesucceed ( talk) 17:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Tech Crunch" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
It's a general tech site, owned by AOL, which also occasionally covers the meatier video games industry topics. The About page has all you'll want to know. Although they print "thought pieces and other types of articles", they seem to be intent on being factual and fairly thorough.
There's no reason not to consider them reliable, right? Willhesucceed ( talk) 14:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about the sourcing used in The Punisher (1993 video game) up for discussion at WT:VG#Punisher sourcing czar ♔ 20:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we should include APGNation as a reliable source for video games, as recent discussion shows a consensus to use it (see 1, 2). There's one editor concerned with using it for BLPs, but that's a concern to be shared for all sources in the list - each source that is reliable for the project should be independently assessed for claims not related to video games. Diego ( talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Maximum: The Video Game Magazine" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk
Not sure about this one. It was published in the UK in 1995-96. It ran only seven issues, which suggests that circulation was low, but it was published by EMAP, the editor was Richard Leadbetter (of Sega Saturn Magazine), and more than one of their staff seem to be established journalists. Notable/reliable source or no?-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "TechRaptor" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
TechRaptor is a general technology and gaming site that's existed for two years. It has an editor, and a large and varied staff. It has an ethics policy, and a privacy policy, which speaks to their professionalism; link. They've had interviews with bigwig developers like CDProjekt, up-and-comers like Daniel Vavra, and others, so they're noteworthy in the video game industry, at least. They've also been referenced by CinemaBlend. I've been reading them for about two months now and I haven't noticed anything incorrect or willfully false being published.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to provide as proof. An easy way for others to verify that they're reliable would be to crosscheck random news articles with other sites that report on the same events and subjects.
Willhesucceed ( talk) 17:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I found http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51966824_Cheaters_in_the_Steam_Community_Gaming_Social_Network which contains a large amount of research on cheats and Valve Anti-Cheat. The author is Jeremy Blackburn.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Lost Levels" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
I vaguely recall removing this site from articles in the past, but here's the deal: it's a site on game history run by Frank Cifaldi, whose pedigree includes senior editor at 1UP and publication in other game rags. I don't see a guarantee of reliability at the about page but what are your thoughts on using it as a situational source? czar ♔ 17:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Erik Kain recently did a live stream discussion on Youtube with Greg Tito, Janelle Bonanno, and John Bain, all important figures in the video games press.
This video was linked to from Forbes in an article Erik Kain did for them.
I know it's an unconventional source whose technical RS-ness it's possible to debate (pro: linked to from Forbes, by a respected gaming journalist with some journalistic pedigree; con: linked to from Forbes blogs, which some argue is just a little better than self-publishing), but the guidelines for such things are exactly that, guidelines, and exceptions are allowed, since the goal, ultimately, is to ensure a quality encyclopaedia.
In this case, I'd argue that the strictures of the guidelines aside, this is de facto a reliable source since 1. it's unedited, so no shenanigans are possible, 2. it does have some oversight and structure, with Erik Kain fielding questions, and 3. it's industry peers addressing industry matters in a roundtable-style discussion, which is no different than a radio discussion or a TV news panel except for production values. As such, I'd like some acknowledgement here that it's a good source for the Gamergate article. He plans to make this a semi-regular thing, so we can discuss its general reliability at a later date.
Here it is for your consideration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmosgPNXmNc&feature=youtu.be
Willhesucceed ( talk) 17:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
He's written for Slate, Business Insider, The Week, Techonomy, and Mother Jones (which has been included in Mediaite). He's been quoted in The Atlantic. He's been in the Yale Law Journal.
Gamezone, Cinema Blend, Bright Side of News, International Business Times, and FMV have referenced him about video games or the industry. Yahoo! News and Hexun have referenced him about the video games industry. BBC Business Matters and HuffPost Live have interviewed him about Gamergate.
Edit: but wait, there's more: Kotaku, RockPaperShotgun, The Daily Dot, and Slate all referencing him, too.
It seems to me that if anyone's to be considered reliable at Forbes re: video games, it should be Kain. I'd like an acknowledgement of his special standing at the Forbes blogs as a de facto reliable source so that the list of reliable sources for video games can be updated appropriately. Willhesucceed ( talk) 03:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Those claims would never be left unqualified. It would have to be Erik Kain of X said Japanese games are not misogynistic (and even then, in what context?) Even if IGN was used in your examples above, we wouldn't care what a person at IGN thought apropos of nothing. If the question is whether Kain in some kind of involved figure whose opinion matters, it totally depends on the situation. No one commentator has blanket credibility to speak authoritatively about every issue. Furthermore, if a commentator's stance on such things mattered, an independent, secondary source would cover it. ( edit conflict) Can't say anything more about this without going in circles, so I'm exiting the conversation here. Kain is not "de facto reliable"—no one is czar ♔ 18:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Impressive list. Let me know if anyone has any questions about Polish-language websites. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
We need more international sources.
That is all. Willhesucceed ( talk) 07:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Rev3Games" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
Bringing this one up again as there was no response last time. Pretty certain on this one's reliability, but it hasn't been listed yet. Owned by Discovery Digital Networks. About page reveals qualified executive team. Up until April this year, Adam Sessler (of RS G4 and X-Play) featured in much of the site's video-based content. CR4ZE ( t • c) 06:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the previous discussion.
I would like to request a statement from this WikiProject for the Sources guideline regarding JimmyBlackwing's essay, section "Fake it". The practice described in that section is not about obtaining digital copies of a source, but something that would lead to:
Magazine said that game was great. [fake1 1]
The game is great. [fake2 3]
{{
cite journal}}
: ref stripmarker in |at=
at position 11 (
help); ref stripmarker in |issue=
at position 3 (
help); ref stripmarker in |quote=
at position 19 (
help); ref stripmarker in |title=
at position 5 (
help)
84.127.80.114 ( talk) 07:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Basically it's a matter of reliance on third party sourcing. This is not ideal, but in a pinch it can work or it can be indistinguishable from actual verification. |
this WikiProject firmly believes that faking sources is an acceptable practice" and has done as he suggested above and sought advice elsewhere. Specifically he has crossposted at WT:CITE where he claims (now writing as 84.127.82.127) that from the above discussion "
It looks like this practice is acceptable in some situations". Editors there are now talking about community bans and immediate indefinite blocks. Just a heads up. - Thibbs ( talk) 17:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious what others think about industry awards like BÄM! and the European Games Award. These and similar awards seem to be cited across the project, but the links often lead to an advertisement-heavy or extremely basic website or even just to a press release. In other words, there appears to be little traction among third-party sources about these awards—except through publishing their press releases—and I'm thinking about cutting them back if others agree.
I found out about this via User:Goodgame, "the official account of the press office of Goodgame Studios". (I warned the "editor" about our username and conflict of interest policies in October and they haven't edited since.) It turns out that Goodgame Studios won a European Games Award and is also the main sponsor of the award. In fact, much of that article is supported by primary/press release sources, but it's not just that article. It just makes me wonder how many of these are legitimate awards, and how many are just another form of advertising that we should remove. Woodroar ( talk) 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Find out if VentureBeat is reliable, find out if DailyTech is reliable, find out if Tech Times is reliable, find out if Touch Arcade and find out if The Wall Street Journal is reliable. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 07:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Pak-GN" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
So I saw this website while checking up on Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes and I'm not sure if the site is reliable or not. example. GamerPro64 03:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen much agreement as to when ScrewAttack is a reliable source, but it doesn't seem to be very often. I do, however, know that one area commonly approved for situational sources is reception, especially accolades, and so I'd like to know if a ScrewAttack ranking would be appropriate for the Sonic Adventure 2 article as it's currently used. Opinions? Tezero ( talk) 23:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Trust in Play" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
I consider this source unreliable but I'd like second opinions since it's being used in a number of articles. Their About Us gives no indication of editorial or journalistic experience or credentials. I also can't find any indication that reliable sources are relying on or reposting their content. Opinions? Woodroar ( talk) 06:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Requested keep of the added information - YouTube is an unreliable source, with the exception if the video is part of the official account of a game or game's company. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 03:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Done Thank you for considering this request! Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Gamesauce" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
There was a thread about Gamesauce years ago with no real consensus on whether or not the magazine was reliable. Hopefully there can be one this time around. GamerPro64 20:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Extra Credits" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
Are Extra Credits videos usable in criticism sections? I'm asking because it's used in pages Call of Juarez: The Cartel, God of War II (dead Youtube link) and a bunch of other pages, not because I plan on using it myself. Also, I don't know if the link search will be useful, since most of the links seem to be Youtube videos. SonOfPlisskin ( talk) 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys. I don't mean to dump something in your laps, but you guys are just so amazin'. How does racketboy.com fare in evaluation? Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Gamnesia" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
There's quite a bit of information on here, but I'm not sure about its reliability. Its about page doesn't really clear things up, but the write for us page makes it seem like there's some degree of credibility, or at the least an interview to begin and then peer-reviewing for newer writers. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Do we have an exact checklist for verifying a RS, like there is for a WikiProject to verify "B quality"? I don't see one at WP:RS, amazingly. But then, that area doesn't have the awesome source list that this project has. Which I really think that it should, although I imagine the traffic would be enormous. Do we need to have a particular checklist, or should we focus on creating a generic one for WP:RS? I see you guys using some seriously impressive investigative journalistic principles behind it (many of which I never would have thought of, because some of you are professionals at it), and it could be codified like "B quality" is. If we had it that way, maybe there would be fewer occurences of people like me bugging the experts to do this for them, and more occurences of people following the guideline and simply publishing the results here for documentation and linking purposes. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
(bulleted text above added by Smuckola. - Thibbs ( talk) 13:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC))
The factors that go into weighing reliability of a source aren't a secret, and so to that extent I agree with the idea of increasing clarity for editors by listing some of the more common factors, but I don't think it would fit at WP:RS due to WP:RSCONTEXT. WP:RSN (the discussion board for WP:RS) and WT:VG/RS (the discussion board for WP:VG/RS) have different granulation to their respective foci. RSN is generally concerned with specific analysis of individual articles and VG/RS is generally concerned with broad analysis of publishers. Because of this RSN can help determine consensus on specific inclusions in the article (not quite a conclusive presumption with respect to the article) whereas VG/RS can only provide a rule of thumb (nothing more than a rebuttable presumption with respect to an article). WP:VG/RS is subsidiary to WP:RS. When there is conflict between the two, WP:RS controls. The reason WP:RS doesn't have an exact formula for determining reliability is because each source is treated individually so generalization is hard to achieve. A checklist seems more in line with a rule of thumb such as we have here at VG/RS. The only downside I can see is that a checklist might encourage gaming the system especially for newer users who don't grasp the distinction between VG/RS's use as a rule of thumb and the fact that WP:RS trumps WP:VG/RS. I'd be interested to hear what others think of the idea. - Thibbs ( talk) 13:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)