Talk:Crash Override (book)

Consensus on Reception
Just touching base with regards to the reception section. , I agree with you: the best place to look for a RS giving a consensus on this kind of thing is an aggregator site like Metacritic etc. Unfortunately the analogous citation for a book like this would probably be Goodreads, but 1) I don't think this is generally considered a RS, 2) It has very evidently been brigaded by new accounts and down-ratings as a result of the Gamergate controversy (see the Q&A on that page).

So I'm not sure where we should go for a RS that states "consensus." I think the default here would be to cite a bunch of different well-regarded RS reviews, and then summarize their critical consensus. Do you think that would still count as WP:OR? -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If no source makes a summary analysis, we don't make a summary statement that cannot be verified. An alternative would be to say "Critics praised the author's X, Y, Z" with a bunch of refs following, because it's true via its sources but we don't make an original conclusion about the body of reviews as a whole (we, as WP editors, aren't afforded the credibility to determine whether "reviews were generally positive/mixed"—we leave that to a professional). And Goodreads is entirely user-generated, so it has no system of fact-checking, editorial pedigree, accuracy, etc. and wouldn't ever be reliable for WP's purposes, though perhaps interesting anecdotally. czar  20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * surely a more neutral wording would be 'Some critics' your wording implies all critics praised the author. When its very easy to find a lot of critics calling it out for its historical inaccuracies and just different enough names to avoid slander law suits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.136.223 (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you would provide reliable sources to support your statements; all material on Wikipedia must be supported by such sources. If it is "very easy" to find these soueces, then please do it, as the WP:BURDEN is on you. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * like this one? https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2018/11/crash-override-review-zoe-quinn-sinks-herself-with-crash-override/71724/ 86.136.136.223 (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Try reading WP:RS. (Actually, try not being a gamergater instead). --Wickedterrier (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * so its only a reliable source if it agrees with you want to say, if it doesn't then its not?86.136.136.223 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * because if you are rejecting the one i linked as being unreliable you will also have to reject the other two as being equally unreliable. One isn't even really a review or a critique, its just a brief overview of what the book claims to be and the other barely mentions the book but is more focused on social commentry about harassment and I don't think there are any decent people out there who think it is acceptable to harass anyone. I certainly don't.For the record, I've never posted to the #gamergate nor trying to interact with the so called victims of its 'hate' I did spend a few months a couple of years back looking for evidence after first reading about the whole controversy and was unable to find anything but assertion that it existed, so if you happen to be able to link to proof i would be interested in seeing it. 17:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Source reliability depends on editorial pedigree, reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, editorial policy. Oneangrygamer.com does not purport to have any of these things. If you have questions about how source reliability on Wikipedia works, please ask at the Teahouse or Reliable sources/Noticeboard, not the article talk page. czar  17:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, OneAngryGamer is not a reliable source because it doesn't have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, nor is it generally noted for the quality of its book reviews. In fact, I can't find a single other example of a book review on the entire site. The author of the review, Austin Ogonoski, has never written anything else for the site and does not appear to be a professional writer or book reviewer; they appear to be a race car driver with a penchant for retweeting InfoWars conspiracy nonsense, which is not a good advertisement for their credibility.
 * This is nicely proven in the actual "review," because its content is more or less a series of vile personal attacks on the book's author, including absurd and unsupported claims of mental illness. In fact, the review's author demonstrates their own total ignorance in several places, notably here: If Quinn is queer on page three and dating a straight male colleague just ten pages later, what does this say about 1) her mental stability and 2) the accuracy of what she’s written about in Crash: Override? As our queer article helpfully discusses, that someone is "queer" may indeed mean that they are bisexual or heteroflexible. A woman who is "queer" may indeed date straight men. There is literally nothing about that fact which demonstrates either "mental instability" or "inaccuracy." QED, this review is hot garbage bullshit, it'll never be in this article (or anywhere else in Wikipedia) and we won't waste any more time here discussing it. Did you have another source in mind? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Its a review of the book, ie someones opinion. The author links his sources in the article. So if you are rejecting that one you also have to reject the other 2 in the article otherwise you are showing a double standard. 86.136.136.223 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all opinions are created equal, and we may indeed decide that some opinions are worthy of republication while others are not. Wikipedia is not a free speech platform and not all viewpoints are entitled to space in the encyclopedia. If you disagree with our conclusion here, you're welcome to open a thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and ask for a broader consensus about the reliability of "OneAngryGamer.net." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Except in this case you are dismissing evidence that not all critics praised the author because the critics who aren't praising her don't meet your standards for being good enough. you are intentionally dismissing evidence which doesn't support the position you have decided that the article should take. Since i have a feeling if i start giving examples of anyone disliking her book those too won't be considered reliable, i wont bother digging them up. You are obviously not interested in improving the article by reducing bias.86.136.136.223 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One Angry Gamer won't meet Wikipedia's source inclusion standards as self-published sources generally don't count. 86.136.136.223, because Wikipedia is desiogned to reflect mainstream media content, excluding "One Angry Gamer" is improving Wikipedia, regardless of the accuracy of lack thereof of his review. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)