Talk:Video game journalism/Archive 1

Merge from NGJ
I think this should wait until this article has been fleshed out some more, and the depth to which it will reach is clearer. Right now NGJ is easily worthy of its own page. --Tom Edwards 16:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I originally was going to advocate a merge, but I agree with Tom Edwards' view here. Guroadrunner 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Defining publications of note
We need to start regulating what is added to the Publications of Note heading. It's a little flabby as it is, and if the article becomes popular things will deteriorate further. Is there a Wiki-wide policy on these sorts of things? --Tom Edwards 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article title
The article is about computer and video game journalism. As such, it should be moved to Computer and video game journalism. If there are no objections, I will do so myself. JimmyBlackwing 10:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. jaco ♫ plane  10:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing 01:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Another merge - Independent video game journalism
I think we should also merge Independent video game journalism into this article. jaco ♫ plane 06:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing 12:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

One more merge - Video game magazine
I don't see much value in having two seperate articles here. I think they should be merged. jaco ♫ plane 11:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Definite merge. I don't even see why you're asking! :-p --Tom Edwards 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll get round to merging these articles soon then :P jaco ♫ plane  20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Call for research
Hi all. I like this article and request some collaboration on improving it. If you know of any core readings or research on this subject then give an idea of the most reliable sources. I'll have a search around myself. Also - I made some changes in writing style and removal of arguments. Feel free to collaboratively adjust any of my changes to improve the writing further. Thanks AlanBarnet 07:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again just a quick question - this site looks fairly reasonable. If anyone has any similar sites that look to be reasonable sources give me a pointer. Happy new year. AlanBarnet 04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I searched around for sources some time ago, and I placed most of them in the "References" section of the article. Have you looked through those? JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-01-3 03:08


 * Sure Jacoplane. They're very useful. I'm looking for a kind of hierarchy of reliability though. Still working on it and there seems to be even more interesting material to write about. Thanks AlanBarnet 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Escapist
I really don't understand why the Escapist is listed as a resource. The other sites listed here are huge gaming sites while the Escapist is a new, small site with hardly any content and definitely does not help define Video game journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.234.162 (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call seven features a week by leading writers and the most popular video reviews in all gamedom "hardly any content". The Escapist might not have the reach of Gamespot, but that's because mainly it targets a better-educated and more influential audience. --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Touchy subject
I notice the term "Bow N" is used in the article. I am wondering whether this is appropriate or not. Its certainly not a word I'd use in conversation. It looks a little inflamatory but I'll check up first. AlanBarnet 07:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Bow Nigger article is actually a really good piece of writing. It's not NGJ though, because NGJ is just an assclown gillonism rather than anything which actually exists. - hahnch  e  n 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't think there's any need for opinion or insults, is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.199.209 (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention?
Noticed here that you mention Kieron Gillon's creation of the term, but there is actually no mention anywhere of Rock Paper Shotgun, the site that Kieron Gillon most regularly posts his articles on. Seems a bit of an odd oversite. (70.71.251.156 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

Recent incidents
Just two recent examples of rumor-based tech journalism: new New iPad (true rumor), X-surface Xbox (false rumor). The article seems too high-level for including this detailed incidents. Is there a timeline of notable tech rumors where they could be described? Diego (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Question
What happened to Escapist Magazine in the "Publications of Note" section? It was there before. Why remove it?


 * It was removed in this edit of September 2009. According to that user's edit summaries he thought it comparatively insignificant. The entry didn't cite any third-party sources anyway. Huon (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Question 2
I'll use the help me one last time. What happened to 1UP and GameSpy? Shouldn't these sites still be in the "Publications of Note" even if they no longer operate just like "The Official Xbox and PlayStation Magazine, and GamePro"?

Sorry about that sir. Thanks for your reply but when will I be getting an ans bout this?


 * Check the page history to find out when it was removed. It was still there when Escapist Magazine was removed, so you'll have to look through at most three and a half years of history. I dug through the history once, you can do so yourself this time. Huon (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This one was much quicker to find; 1UP and GameSpy were removed in March 2013 in these edits. No opinion on whether we should list defunct publications. Huon (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Journalism?
Video game journalism directly conflicts with the definition of journalism, either call it something else, remove it from the journalism page, or delete it all together I would suggest video game blogging or video game advertising and reviewing, instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.33.80 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Publications of Note
Are the publications listed here are really credible and worthy to be mentioned here? Plus didn't GamePro, PSMagazine and XboxMagazine shut down already? I mean they are no longer publishing issues. Just like 1UP and GameSpy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Latik (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Latik (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You may wish to ask those questions at the reliable sources noticeboard, or gain a consensus here, with people who edit the article. --I dream of horses (T) @ 05:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

69.162.16.16 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC) How do I gain a consensus? Cause I hope someone like an editor can see this post on the talk page and address this concern. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.176.230 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you gain a consensus through the talk page. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus was reached at WP:VG's talk page (here) to remove this embedded list. I intend to do it if I ever get around to cleaning up this article, but anyone else can feel free to remove the list if they feel up to the task earlier than I. -Thibbs (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously though
I think this article should mention that professional video game reviewers are a joke and no one takes them seriously. The "Ethics" section seems like it was heavily padded to make reviewers look better than they are, especially the ridiculous section on "experiential reviews," which is total OR with no references and which I have deleted accordingly. 69.42.19.171 (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take issue with your blanket statement, granted it's been a good six months since it was posted. There are good pro reviewers out there that people take seriously. Not a lot but some to be sure. Do you not consider someone like Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw a pro reviewer? Besides if it's as bad as you claim then do something about it. Start your own review publication and prove how "pro" you are and shame all those non-pro's out of work.BcRIPster (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Even Yahtzee doesn't take himself seriously. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are "tabloids"?
I don't think the rather derogatory term "tabloid" should be applied to Joystiq, Kotaku, and Destructoid in the "Blogs" section of publications of note. The source never uses the word, only mentions two of the three sites, and is quite dated besides (from 2007). The denotation of 'blog' as distinct from 'online' is also confusing. From what I can tell the informal style of these blogs is being confused for poor quality. If anything they are good examples for New Games Journalism. I'll make a small change for now -- hopefully we can get a conversation going about it. MukashiEcho (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There have long been concerns about these blogs' professionalism, or rather the lack thereof, especially Kotaku's. I'll see what sources I can find that discuss this topic. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Reorganise references
I've noticed that the references are getting to be a bit much. They should be changed to \<\ref names\>\ and the bulk of the tags moved to the bottom of the page, much like has been done on the Gamergate page. It makes editing much easier. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not familiar with how to do it. Could somebody help, or at least tell me how to do what I'm proposing? Willhesucceed (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Publications of note: Niche and Forum?
I'm wondering if popular but (relatively) niche websites like RockPaperShotgun deserve their own section. Also, certain fora like NeoGAF and SomethingAwful are places where journalists like to occasionally hang, and are also popular sources for gaming news. Do they maybe deserve mentioning here? Willhesucceed (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Falsely accused"
I see no justification to assert as fact that the Quinn/Grayson accusation was false. We have a reference that says "no compelling evidence", and we have other references that express an opinion. - Khendon (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a false accusation when there's no compelling evidence to support it.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What? No, that's not how evidence works. It's an unproven accusation when there's no compelling evidence to support it; it becomes a false accusation when there's compelling evidence to refute it. - 08:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. If there's nothing to support it then it's false.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The accusations are objectively, provably false; Grayson did not write any articles about Quinn after beginning the relationship and never reviewed Depression Quest for any outlet. There can't be a "conflict of interest" where there was no interest to be conflicted. No one on the other side has even attempted to explain how it can be otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as a thought, would it be worth pulling all of the discussion about Anita from the GamerGate section? It was the birth of GamerGate, but as the allegations were completely disproved, it is a non-issue in terms of journalistic ethics. We could cut it back to something like:
 * The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014, and encompassed a variety of issues and allegations in game journalism, including ethics and alleged censorship. As a result of the discussion, several gaming media and press sites amended their disclosure and conflict of interest policies.
 * It might be putting GamerGate in a bit more positive a light, but it same time it avoids repeating disproven allegations about Quinn All that background is provided by the Gamergate article. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed it due to the fact that it's a violation of WP:NPOV to state in Wikipedia's voice that something is 'false', untrue, true, or the like. Besides, the sentence right after it already discredits it. It's the same reason we can't state that Communism is a bad system on its Wikipedia page, because that's not NPOV. Also, the relevant policy is WP:IMPARTIAL. Tutelary (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've reinstated it. Whether or not Communism is bad is a matter of opinion, debated by reliable sources. It is an objective fact that the allegations against Quinn and Grayson were false, and multiple reliable sources have reported them as such. NPOV does not prohibit us from stating that things which are false are false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for disputes to happen. We, again, cannot describe anything as false, true, or the like without showing bias. NPOV means that we are not to show bias, even when there are indefinite amount of evidence to describe something like that. We are not to show bias at all. Per WP:IMPARTIAL, from NPOV a policy, says The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. We cannot reject the accusations as 'false'. We have to describe them, and say that X or Y sources described it as false. That's what we can do, and that would not be in violation of NPOV. But you can't say 'false accusations' because that's a breach of NPOV. Tutelary (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand NPOV. The idea that the allegations are not false is a fringe theory deserving of zero space in this encyclopedia. We are not required to give space or credence to fringe theories which have been widely rejected in mainstream sources. While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are no reliable sources which give any credence to the claim that these allegations were anything other than false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * NPOV; a neutral point of view. Just reading that phrase, and saying that 'Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral'. Then you read 'the accusations were false'. That's stating in Wikipedia's voice and taking a stand, a bias in favor of stating that they are false. Also, citing a due weight guideline when you're wanting to claim that the accusations were false and not even answering about WP:IMPARTIAL--which I'm not even disputing that they were false, we can't state that in Wikipedia's voice. Why are you so insistent on this, btw? I've seen you edit war on this on GamerGate, as well. I also think that in its current form of the sentences, it's a double negative and may infer that the accusations were true. Tutelary (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "a bias in favor of stating that they are false"
 * Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the accusations, and that what evidence there is available shows that they are very likely false? Why would it be a "bias" to state that they are false? The alternative would be to not describe the accusations at all because an article cannot be used to post suggestions that some dirt may stick. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because WP:NPOV mandates that articles are to remain neutral, not expressing one view as right or the other as wrong, and in terms of a dispute, describing the dispute and not just saying that one side of the dispute was wrong or right. That's what NPOV demands and obligates. We don't say 'Flat Earthers are plain wrong' (even though they are). We say 'Flat Earthers is an ancient belief that the Earth was flat which has now been discredited by modern science' or some variant. We don't state that 'The accusations of X are false'. We say that 'The accusations of X are Y, however, da da da' and background context. The article already stated this earlier with 'false' removed. This led to accusations of her receiving positive press for her Depression Quest game in exchange, however Grayson did not write about Quinn after beginning the relationship and never reviewed Depression Quest. That is NPOV compliant. There's no need to have a 'false' lodged in there, it already purposefully states that Grayson never reviewed Depression quest and inherently says as a result that the accusations are false. We don't -need- to have 'false accusations' written anywhere in that sentence. That's appropriately describing the dispute. And regardless of how widespread or how untrue something is, we -cannot- give bias to one or the other by means of biasing words. 'False' or 'true' or 'untrue' or the like. Tutelary (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. See the very first words of Duke lacrosse case: The Duke lacrosse case was a 2006 criminal case resulting from what proved to be a false accusation of rape... See that word false? It's used. We use it where reliable sources do.
 * A false accusation of rape is in a different context in which the main known form of an untrue claim of rape is just that--a false accusation of rape. That's the pair of words that it's known by, and it's not appreciated that you are trying to find that one counterexample and attempt to say that 'hey, see, this article uses the word false SO WE CAN too'. Not appreciated. Tutelary (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your response is word salad. What does that first sentence even argue? If the "main known form of an untrue claim of rape is just that--a false accusation of rape", then obviously the main known form of an untrue claim of a conflict of interest would be "a false allegation of a conflict of interest," right? Which is basically what we say.
 * You said that neutrality means we can't use words such as "false." I provided a concrete example where we do use the word "false." The fact is that the allegations against Quinn and Grayson are false. You can keep arguing until the cows come home, but the word stays in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the title and the common name of the subject of that kind of rape. Just like the wording 'False Dichotomy'. We do use 'false' in that context, because that's the common name and what those pairing of the words mean. And, the fact that the allegation are false is not even disputed by myself. I'm completely in you and John's ballbark that they are in completely false. But we can't take sides on the article, and 'This led to false accusations' is plainly taking a side in Wikipedia's voice and is simply not permitted per WP:NPOV. The fact that you consider yourself so strongly as to plainly take no compromise at all is very telling. Tutelary (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what to say, because that makes literally no sense. You're arguing that we can call a false thing false, but not this false thing, because reasons. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We either describe these allegations as false or we don't include them at all, per WP:FRINGE. They are disproven allegations made only by a fringe of random anonymous people on the Internet and objectively, provably false based on available evidence and based on the descriptions of the allegations in reliable sources. If you'd prefer that the whole thing be removed entirely, just say so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * False dichotomy, and it's a bit concerning when you're linking to WP:FRINGE when we're talking about WP:NPOV. The sentence is biased because it's spouting bias that the accusations were false; assertively too, without any attribution. Should you want to use those sources you were talking about and attribute them, that would also be not a violation of NPOV, but the way that you do it must be considered as well. In any case, saying that any one accusation was false even though RS say that, without attribution is a violation of NPOV. Tutelary (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claim that it is "bias" to state that the accusations are false is laughable and displays a complete misapprehension of the word. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, it's a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL to state in Wikipedia's voice that the accusations are false, plainly due to the effect that it has on the sentence. It's taking a side, which is not what the article should do. Tutelary (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what should the article say? Do you think it should just say that there are accusations of X (where X is a very bad thing that named people are said to have done)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sentence structure and grammar
Our article currently states that Eron Gjoni made accusations that Zoe Quinn cheated on him. It does not state that Gjoni had anything to do with the allegations of unethical behavior, and that has been clarified by the addition of "others" to that section. If you think the section needs to be rewritten to make that clearer, let's do that. But writing that "however neither Grayson nor Zoe's boyrfriend did not write about Quinn after beginning the relationship and never reviewed Depression Quest" is not only horridly ungrammatical, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's injecting information about Gjoni in a sentence that is discussing Grayson, and therefore confuses the reader (no one has ever argued that Gjoni reviewed Depression Quest). Please discuss rather than edit-war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that the IP has refused to engage in meaningful discussion and is continuing to edit-war, now attempting to rewrite the article against the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources and create the impression that the claims about Quinn and Grayson are meaningful, when they have been widely determined to be false and specious. I will continue to remove such allegations, as it is well-documented that Grayson has never reviewed Depression Quest and Gjoni's own timeline establishes when the relationship began. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Retroactively
User:Khendon removed the word, replacing it with simpler words that carry the time distinction, here. However the important point is that at a given time they went back and tagged the affected articles, as they should have been tagged in the first place, not that they suddenly did a bunch of disclosure about stuff which was already known. If time permits I may tweak this wording. "Retrospective" is maybe a better word than "retroactivly". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Agree "retrospective" would work. "Retroactive" means taking effect from a date in the past, which I don't think is the intended sense here. - Khendon (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Publications of Note is a Mess
This section is very outdated and confusing.


 * Giant Bomb is not a news site, they have 1 news editor and mostly just make entertaining videos.
 * Polygon is one of the largest news sites and its not listed.
 * GameFAQs is the 2nd largest video game site on the internet IIRC, it should be listed under strat guides.
 * Too many obscure magazines to be "of note" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeCakee (talk • contribs) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to update it, but I don't want to put time into it only to have someone else come in and say no.

--TheeCakee (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you find secondary sources that say this? Otherwise we're relying on your original research. Try a video game reliable sources custom Google search. – czar   22:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole section seems to be OR. I suggest dumping the descriptions and categorization. Rhoark (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, some of those descriptors seem really promotional in tone as well. I'd vote for just deleting the whole section and leaving a link in See also to a list of publications. — Strongjam (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the section as unsourced. If any reliable sources can suggest a list of "publications of note", we can rebuild it around that. Until then, it's just original research. Woodroar (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Video game journalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081106223155/http://www.alwaysblack.com:80/blackbox/bownigger.html to http://www.alwaysblack.com/blackbox/bownigger.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Video game journalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041019012425/http://alwaysblack.com/blackbox/ngj.html to http://alwaysblack.com/blackbox/ngj.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal by IP
Sorry, due to an early morning mistaken finger, my edit summary was cut off. I meant to say "you are better off at the reliable sources noticeboard." Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Dumuzid (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Social issues section
I reverted changes to the Social issues section again, for a couple reasons. First, it includes word-for-word copying and close paraphrasing from the Abstract. Second, we don't call a journal article a "research paper" and misrepresent its contents by saying "some may consider". See WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV for those respective policies. WP:BRD suggests that we discuss changes to this section here. Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, I was asked to expand upon it when I pointed out the source in question actually doesn't call it sexist. I tried my best to expand upon it given the limited source and was then given a weird warning after my edit.  I think the current stub should be expanded with opinions from the sourced pieces, I.E: Leigh Alexander, noted journalist, said the industry was sexist.  Fangrim (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The abstract, which can be considered a summary of the article itself, says "video games portray women as hypersexualized objects" and "magazines consistently treat digital women as vacant pinups to be ogled or irrelevant sidekicks to be tolerated, and real women as annoying interlopers to be bullied". How else would you describe it other than "[p]ortrayal of women by the industry has been criticized as sexist"? If you feel that we can fill in details with additional sources referenced by this article, then by all means, let's discuss that here. Woodroar (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't up to me to describe it, its up to the article. Nowhere in the article does it say its sexist.  With that standard we could throw the word misogynistic into the article.  Fangrim (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's up to us. As editors, we're here to fairly represent what reliable sources say. We're not able to build an article entirely of quotations, so we must necessarily paraphrase and summarize our references.
 * I'm curious, though. Are you saying that the article does not criticize the portrayal as sexist or misogynist? Or are you saying that it does not use the words "sexist" or "misogynistic"? Have you read the entire article or are you basing this on the Abstract? Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not up to us to take an article and give our interpretation about it. Also the source is now down, and doi.org search page appears to be down so I cannot find it.  Will try again tommorrow.  https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1555412014566234  https://dx.doi.org/ are the pages im trying to get to Fangrim (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Source is up (Probably DNS on my end) and I can only read the abstract which does not mention the word sexist. Attempts to get access to the article using the source failed, requesting a login. What occurs when access to the article is blocked via login or paid services?  Also, my main complaint is going off of what is available the word sexist isn't used as well the abstract doesn't provide ample evidence to support the claim. Fangrim (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're unable to access a source, we assume good faith on the part of the editor who added it unless or until we can show evidence otherwise. (See WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE for more about that.)
 * I'll be frank here and say that your complaints about the word "sexist" and the abstract's lack of evidence are non-starters. Our core content policies–WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V–require that we fairly summarize what reliable sources say about the subject without adding what we ourselves believe is true. Words like sexism/sexist and misogyny/misogynist are reasonable summaries of the phrases "portray women as hypersexualized objects", "treat digital women as vacant pinups to be ogled", and "[treat] real women as annoying interlopers to be bullied". (And that's only pulling from the Abstract.) Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, this is perfectly acceptable. That would be the case even if the full article didn't specifically use words like "misogynist". (Which I highly doubt, by the way. Sources that reference it do use that word, which implies that it's there.) It's also not up to us to doubt sources simply because they don't "show their math", so to speak. We have no policies requiring that reliable sources reveal their own sources or evidence. Woodroar (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Video game journalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524053053/http://westword.com/issues/2005-01-06/news/message.html to http://www.westword.com/issues/2005-01-06/news/message.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051128100604/http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/21/232623.php to http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/21/232623.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Outdated?
We sure it's still outdated? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on Article
I find that this page also does an excellent job of giving a history of video game journalism, going back to the 1970’s when it was a subscription-based magazine about arcade machines. The article then goes on to cover the history of print-based gaming journalism, as well as web-based journalism, new media journalism and independent journalism all done about the video game industry. The article does so coherently and without any form of bias. The article also covers the dicey subject of ethics in gaming journalism, but does so without taking a side when discussing recent controversies like GamerGate, review score scandals, and blacklisting. However, I believe that the section on social issues is way too small. It’s just a sentence and deserves more for something that was able to divide a community. This is the one thing from this article that I believe needed to be improved because of its importance. From that, I believe that this article would be truly complete and provide the best possible information for those who wish to know about gaming journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfunchion (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Making Edits
Hi, I am planning on making edits to the lead section of this article. The lead section in its current state does not inform the reader about what the article is going to cover. In addition, the lead is not properly sourced. Here are a couple of sources I am planning on using to write the lead section with: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1049994303.php https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/may/17/print-is-dead-video-journalism-games

Please let me know if you have any feedback on the sources I have chosen or any suggest of sources I could use. Thank you. AlexLambright (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources should generally go into the main part of the article. The lead can then summarize the content without needing explicit references. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've reverted to the last stable version from about a day ago. The overhaul removed reliable, professional sources and replaced them with mostly unreliable opinion pieces from indie sites. In addition, the changes pushed (or came close to pushing) a pro-GamerGate/"actually, it's about ethics in games journalism" POV which runs counter to virtually all reliable sources, from games journalism or otherwise. Woodroar (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Tweaks and citation requirements
I've added a few tweaks covering various citations:


 * "recently" - last week? last decade? This needs rewording - and possibly moving out the lead into a section with sources that cover the growth of the sector
 * "been noted for" - if Kotaku really has been noted for something there should be a source that isn't Kotaku. I changed it to be 'self reporting' until that source is found
 * NeoGAF - if it's really the source of leaks then there should be a source saying it is. I'm inclined to strip this as bunk but for now I've just flagged it as needing a source.

Philipwhiuk (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

History of Print Magazines and crash post-1984?
This part of the article is HUGELY US-centric, and only covers the US computer-game market crash in 1984. This was NOT mirrored in the UK or Europe. In the UK and Europe, and much of the rest of the world (Australia, New Zealand), the market for print magazines continued to flourish.

This entire section should be reconsidered to include the UK/EU magazines such as Your Sinclair, Crash, Sinclair User, C&VG, Edge, New Computer Express, Zzap, et al - right now, they're missing an entire section of print magazine history from 1984-1995. Fleetingshadow (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Social issues section
The social issues section claims that the "portrayal of women by the industry has been criticized as sexist", but then justifies its inclusion by citing a paper by Professor H.D. Fisher, whose abstract states:

"Although evidence has shown that video games portray women as hypersexualized objects, video game magazines have received little study. Using the theory of Hegemonic Masculinity, an in-depth review of six video game magazines (three print and three online) revealed that the magazines consistently treat digital women as vacant pinups to be ogled or irrelevant sidekicks to be tolerated, and real women as annoying interlopers to be bullied."

Three print magazines and three online magazines does not an analysis of an entire industry make.

At best this is WP:FRINGE or WP:NOTRELIABLE. Fleetingshadow (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

New Games Journalism
"Gillen's NGJ manifesto was first published on the now defunct state forum/website, a community of video game players often engaged in discussion and analysis of their hobby, from which an anecdotal piece, "Bow Nigger",[57] had appeared."

Unless the piece is the specific (and citable) reason that Gillen wrote the manifesto, there doesn't seem to be much reason to include this anecdotal article. Obviously its title is problematic without any of its own context, none of which is here. If the piece was critical to the writing of the manifesto, then that needs to be made clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.111.152 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the section significantly. We should really let reliable, secondary sources decide if it's important enough to mention. The Guardian source certainly didn't. The rest of that paragraph was unsourced so I cut it. And the paragraph after that was sourced to a Wordpress blog that didn't appear to support any of the claims, so I cut that as well. Woodroar (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)