Talk:Pixel Piracy

Various Source Concerns
When I came upon this article, it had a tag at the top calling for additional sources for its claims. I also noticed that the content of the article had not been significantly altered since two years ago, prior to the game's actual release. So I wrote some new material covering the interim period, and provided citations for these new claims.

I just noticed that most of the citations have been removed. Rather than re-reverting, I thought it would be prudent to raise this issue here first. I can understand the removal of some of the sources I found, including a bug list posted to a subreddit and a summary from IGN; I have no issue with those being removed. They were only supposed to lend credence to some sentiments, and are not key to the article.

But three sources that I feel should not have been removed are the official letter from the developers confronting the game's early access issues (which was removed because it was posted in the game's Steam Community hub), the article detailing the issues of the game (which was removed because it was hosted on a blog website), and the statement concerning the PS4 release mix-up from the development team's own community manager (which was removed because it was posted on the developer's forums). The editor who removed them said that these were not notable.

With all of that relevant secondary material removed, there are now a number of uncited contentious claims in the article. A couple such claims, which were relevant to the reception of the game, have also now been excised as a result. This includes a sentence indicating that some of the community remains completely dissatisfied with the state of the game, whose excision means that the article implies a better reception of the game than is true. I am interested to hear opinions on whether these sources should be reinstated, or else possible alternatives that are of equal or greater relevance than what I had added—official statements by the development team and an analysis by a noted games journalist. Peter Folsaph (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can see clearly in WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY, that primary sources are often disregarded to use. Steam Community, Reddit, etc. are solely community-run and thus are not verifyable and thus not applicable. The blog "The Gemsbock" seems to be a fan-run blog and appears unreliable for the same reasons. For a full list of reliable sources, head over to WP:VG/RS. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, since you referred to them as primary sources, you are obviously well aware that the Steam Community page announcement and Developer forum post in question are not "solely community-run." But, as I said above, it's perfectly acceptable to me that these sources do not end up in the article. I can see how primary sources could be a problem, even if, as here, they are confirming negative aspects of their own product. To reiterate, my primary concern here is that striking out both the sources and the associated claims (the claims were not removed by you, but a subsequent editor) leaves the reception section to be misleading about the present state of the game. I thought that review article source, in addition to meeting Wikipedia's general criteria for the use of a blog as a source, served nicely to meet the "Negative as well as positive reviews" and "Contemporary as well as modern coverage" requirements on WP:VG/RS. The PC Gamer article was positive and contemporary, whereas the Gemsbok article was negative and modern. But again, it doesn't have to be that article, nor any of those sources. If you can find alternative sources that, in your eyes, do a better job of meeting all of Wikipedia's guidelines while providing representation of the same facts and opinions, then I welcome their replacement. Peter Folsaph (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is correct, but we still have to meet Wikipedia guidlines, as you said. With "primary source" I was referring to cite that linked to Quadro Delta's aka. the developer's website, the Steam Community might be a mixture of that, depending on what is linked exactly. I will try to uncover some reliable sources on that topic, but you may so too. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have above added some reliable sources I found on-the-fly, but do not have the time to write lots of content. I packed them in a refideas field for you to use, and hope you find something useful. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort; I have perused the links you found. Two are additional positive early access reviews from 2013 and early 2014. Two of them are about the developer's stance on game piracy. One is about the team's proposed sequel. Seven are near-identical press releases concerning the console port happening. Some of these may indeed be useful for future expansions to the article. But in fact, only one of the links you found can be said to be representing an effort to meet the impartiality requirements from WP:VG/RS, and it's this article, which is from August 2014. It would be preferable to have something that comments on the state of the game in the past year and a half like that Gemsbok article (which still seems to be meeting all of Wikipedia's criteria for the use of blogs as sources). I found one promising review of the Xbox One version, but its server was down; I will keep my eye on it to see if it resurfaces. Otherwise I hope that you or another editor can find a review of the game, and especially of the PC version, that is more modern. I still think that the Gemsbok and Metacritic pages for the game are perfectly serviceable references for its consistently mixed reviews, but you removed the former and the editor that got to the page after you removed the latter. Peter Folsaph (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposed compromise: The use of only the Metacritic page, the Gemsbok article, and the iDigitalTimes article that you found would satisfy all the requirements of WP:VG/RS and Wikipedia's blog source guidelines. These would be sufficient to represent a range of voices from positive to mixed to negative, as well as from contemporary to modern, as well as from metareviews to individual reviews. Would this be acceptable to you? Peter Folsaph (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Metacritic is in so far not applicable because you are citing the user reviews; user reviews are, as the name says, written by users. Use reviews are not notable in any way. See Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing user rating for instance, it is very positive becaues people tend to say "11/10 best game ever ayy lmao", which is plain false and redundant. The Gemsbok page has not been checked so far, but I might go under investigation of notability later on. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, I could definitely see the problem with user review aggregation on Metacritic. Go ahead and leave that one struck out then. But I stand by the iDigitalTimes and Gemsbok pages being suitable additions. You can read the Gemsbok article and judge for yourself, but its author is a notable figure. I meant to mention this when you called it a fan site above, but didn't get around to it. He's not as well known outside of academia, but he's a digital humanities researcher. I know he presented this other game article on that site (about Papers, Please) at a conference, and other stuff I don't remember offhand. Peter Folsaph (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So I took a look at The Gemsbok, and this is what I have to say:
 * Page entirely run by only one person (Daniel Podgorski)
 * Author seems not to be notable.
 * Whole blog has a generally negative attitude, and serves bad for negatively connoted messages.
 * So in my opinion you should carry this to the RS discussion page. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, forget it. I disagree, but if that's your evaluation, then I'm probably just being stubborn because I added it in the first place. Just skip it. I'll only add the iDigitalTimes citation in. Peter Folsaph (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One last point of order, though: As from the beginning above, I do feel that the present version of the 'reception' section is deceptive as long as it contains no mention of the game's remaining gameplay and performance issues. But I guess, for now, I'll leave that for another time or another editor. Peter Folsaph (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)