Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20140402/Feature

Feature: WikiProject Video Games in retrospect
 Submitted by Thibbs 

As we look back over the last ten years of Wikipedia's organized effort at encyclopedic video game coverage, it is apparent that we have come a long way. Officially launched as WikiProject Computer and video games by User:Greyengine5 on 6 February 2004, things really began to take off in 2006, and the project saw its period of greatest departmental expansion between the dawn of 2007 (shortly before the project was rechristened WikiProject Video Games) and mid-2008. With most of the project's core guidelines in place by this point and only a few topic-specific departments left to be created, the project has grown in scope and discussion levels. With the modern-day emphasis on large, forum-style community discussion, we are today seeing something of a contraction of the project as some of the more specific task forces grow stale and fall into inactivity. In the meanwhile, the project's scope continues to expand up through the present day, at which time it oversees over 63,000 articles, files, categories, templates, and more. The current project represents a federated association of at least 16 different video-game-related former WikiProjects, and is one of Wikipedia's largest WikiProjects with over 400 active members. WP:VG comprises six departments and 32 task forces, and its talk page alone regularly sees over 3000 views per month.

For this article the WikiProject Video Games News Letter has asked for some reflection on the past ten years by a small number of the project's original founding members. Although many have retired and are no longer available for interview, a handful of brave editors who still maintain contact with Wikipedia have agreed to brief interviews, which are reproduced below. WolfenSilva joined Wikipedia in February 2004 and retired in December 2005. Frecklefoot joined Wikipedia in September 2002 and remains active today. Andrevan joined Wikipedia in June 2003 and became an administrator on September 2004. All three of these editors were among the active participants in the first year of WP:CVG's life.

An interview with some of our oldest members
WP:VG Newsletter - When did you first become involved in WP:VG and why? WP:VG Newsletter - When did you first start gaming and what was your first game? WP:VG Newsletter - What's your favorite game of all time?
 * WolfenSilva - I may have been from the start, I think. Joined mostly because it was a way of making it a properly cooperative effort towards quality articles.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - Why? I'm a professional video game developer, I grew up with them, and I'm still a fan. And I love Wikipedia. It's natural to be involved in a project I have a great deal of experience with and an affinity for.
 * Andrevan - I joined the then-CVG project early on in my work on Wikipedia. I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/To Fix initiative to add infoboxes to all video game pages, which started in 2004. I was also involved in helping Super Mario 64 become a featured article, also in 2004: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Mario 64/archive1. I also spent time on the history of first person shooters, adding Faceball 2000 to the list, and in dungeon crawlers discussing the influence of Gauntlet on subsequent games. I know a bit about the early history of Nintendo especially in the USA. Some articles I created related to video games were Sega Sammy Holdings, N (game), Minoru Arakawa, Howard Lincoln, Howard Phillips, Nester (character), Shigesato Itoi, Camerica, XIII (video game), List of Star Control races, Universal Media Disc, Kirby Super Star, Mr. Do!, and various others. I also spent a lot of time uploading box art (this was before fair use doctrines evolved to where they are today). I was really a kid in those days - I spend a lot less time playing video games now, and my editing is mostly elsewhere too.
 * WolfenSilva - It was around 1992 or 1993, with one of those "50-in-1" Atari 2600 clones, so the first game is kind of hard to say. River Raid and Keystone Kapers were my favourites from the time.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - I probably became a "gamer" when I managed to convince my parents to get me an Atari 2600 . But my first exposure to video games was Pong and I always wanted to play it whenever I saw it anywhere. It was amazing because you could actually play a game on TV. Amazing! The first game I can remember really being blown away by, though, was the arcade version of  Space Invaders . Jaw-dropping is the only way I can describe it. The "thump, thump, thump" of the invading aliens was my first experience with environmental immersion.
 * Andrevan - I started gaming on the NES and my favorites were SMB3, LOZ, Contra, the usual suspects. Kept playing through SNES Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island, Mario RPG, Donkey Kong Country 1/2/3, etc. Also a big fan of Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, and come N64 Mario 64, Smash Bros., etc. Had a Pokemon phase as well. Went through phases of Halo, Diablo II, Counter-Strike, etc. as well as Starcraft, Civilization, and another favorite is Star Control II/The Ur-Quan Masters. Through emulation I have played many games that I missed the first time around, exploring the evolution of the medium through sometimes obscure titles that paralleled the Nintendo first-party games I mostly played as a kid - the Adventure Island/Wonder Boy/Monster World saga, Solomon's Key, Castlevania: Rondo of Blood, the Bonk series, the Sonic games, Popful Mail, Fantasy Zone. These days I may play a game of Starcraft 2 every once in a while. Love indie games like Cave Story or Luftrausers as well. I am also a software developer and have made some small forays into game development.
 * WolfenSilva - Might be Alpha Centauri, maybe Streets of Rage 2, Ultimate Soccer Manager 98-99, Death Rally... It depends on mood, but Alpha Centauri is the only game I'm yet to uninstall here.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - That's really hard to pin down. So many have had a big impact on me, but my short list is Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Dragon's Lair, Spy Hunter, the original and new versions of X-COM, the Heroes of Might & Magic series, Sid Meier's Civilization series and SunDog: Frozen Legacy. I know these games date me, but I grew up when video games were just emerging.
 * Andrevan - See above.

WP:VG Newsletter - Do you have any memories of the original WP:VG? Can you give us any insights into the founding of the WikiProject? How did you become aware of it? Who were the notable WP:VG editors you remember from the earliest days? "How did you become aware of it?" – I think I stumbled upon it when I formed the Arcade game WikiProject. Someone suggested I make it a task force of the Video Games WikiProject, which I originally opposed. This was back when we were still trying to define what constituted a "video game". At that time, I thought "arcade games" were distinct from "video games" because, of course, they weren't played on video game consoles. This is another instance of things that seem silly now, but were a big deal--at least to me--back then. Now it's obvious that it should be a task force. "Who were the notable WP:VG editors you remember from the earliest days?" – To be honest, I don't really remember. The editor that sticks out most in my mind is who contributed a great deal to a number of my video game industry articles, as well as arranging them into a consistent naming convention. WP:VG Newsletter - Along with Wikipedia in general, WP:VG was considerably less structured a decade ago. Do you think Wikipedia and WP:VG have drifted too far into the legalistic and rule-based or do you think the current level of regimentation is a boon? WP:VG Newsletter - Where have you been most active in Wikipedia? What kinds of articles are you currently focusing on? Do you still contribute to WP:VG articles? Do you (still) play video games? Which games? Early on, and probably the articles I'm most proud of, are the video game industry articles. I heavily contributed to most of them and some almost completely authored alone. For example, I overhauled video game developer  and am almost the sole author of  video game development,  game programmer ,  game programming ,  game development tool ,  game producer  and a number of other similar articles. "What kinds of articles are you currently focusing on?" – Video game lists. I'm trying to get all the video game lists, such as List of Electronic Arts games  and  List of Activision games, into a consistent, easy-to-use format. I'll focus on other things from time to time. For example, right now I'm developing the Oculus VR  article, but organizing lists is always something I can fall back on. There's always plenty to do. "Do you still contribute to WP:VG articles?" – Absolutely. Almost daily. "Do you (still) play video games? Which games?" – Yes, though my tastes don't seem to mesh with most of the other members of the Project. For example, I couldn't care less about Pokemon or Japanese role-playing video games. I guess I'm more old-school, having been around from the dawn of video games. I play  Civ V , an old  Call of Duty  game, the latest X-COM  and right now I'm hooked on  Don't Starve . I can't say I favor one type of game over another. Sometimes I'm in the mood for an FPS, other times I want something slower paced, like a good turn-based strategy game. I don't have a TON of time to devote to video games, though. Being a dad and a husband are my top priorities and my obligations there limit my spare time. WP:VG Newsletter - Which aspects of WP:VG do you think have improved the most in the last 10 years? Are there any areas of coverage that you think are particularly lacking? Where would you like to see the efforts of WP:VG's editors concentrated? "Are there any areas of coverage that you think are particularly lacking?" – I think our lack of screenshots is the biggest weakness. It's not really the Project's fault, but Wikipedia's strict image submission guidelines. I don't think the guidelines are wrong, but too hard to use. I know I've uploaded and tagged images, just to find out that I missed some obscure tag and my image gets submitted for deletion. If I had my way, all video game articles would have numerous screenshots. Currently, we just mostly have the game box art. "Where would you like to see the efforts of WP:VG's editors concentrated?" – With the exception of game screenshots, I can't think of anything in particular I'd like them to focus on.  WP:VG Newsletter - What advice would you give to a new member of WP:VG (or a new Wikipedia editor generally) today? How would this advice be different today than it would have been five or ten years ago? "How would this advice be different today than it would have been five or ten years ago?" – Gosh, I don't know. Back in the early days, I wasn't so concerned with reliable sources. Today, I am. WP:VG Newsletter - Over the last ten years what would you say has been the greatest challenge faced by WP:VG? What has been the greatest success? Are these successes or challenges reflective of Wikipedia's successes and challenges? WP:VG Newsletter - There is some perennial grumbling at places like Wikipedia's Reliable Source Noticeboard  that WikiProject-specific departments like WP:VG's  Sources page  constitute unhelpful decentralization of discussion and that different rules shouldn't apply to different parts of Wikipedia. Similar tension has cropped up from time to time between e.g. WP:VG's Manual of Style and Wikipedia's WP:MOS-JA  over the topic of the standard use of Romaji in articles. Do you have any opinions on this issue? Should WP:VG's departments play a more subservient role in relation to Wikipedia or do they help by providing tailored guidance for gaming topics and by covering niche matters about which Wikipedia's policies are silent? WP:VG Newsletter - Let's talk about the Sega Genesis, er... Mega Drive , um... Sega Megasis. Do we go with the more commonly-used name or the first name? Do we go by the greatest number of sales or by the greatest number of countries? The enormous and grueling debates over the proper name for this system have become something of a joke  in recent years, but the issue does highlight WP:VG's tendency toward inward-looking editing. Game topics popular in English-speaking countries tend to receive thorough coverage whereas game topics popular in non-English countries (with the possible exception of Japan) tend to receive little coverage. Is this a problem? Should WP:VG's coverage prioritize the most popular topics even if they are restricted to a narrow set of countries/languages or should it make efforts toward a broader universal perspective? If it should be more universal in scope, can you think of any good ways to boost coverage of non-English gaming topics? "Do we go by the greatest number of sales or by the greatest number of countries? The enormous and grueling debates over the proper name for this system have become something of a joke  in recent years, but the issue does highlight WP:VG's tendency toward inward-looking editing. Game topics popular in English-speaking countries tend to receive thorough coverage whereas game topics popular in non-English countries (with the possible exception of Japan) tend to receive little coverage. Is this a problem?" – Probably, but I'm sure it's the same all over the 'pedia. English-speaking editors tend to write about what they know and have easier access to English language materials which cover English-language topics. For example, not many English magazines are going to cover how bad the Arabic translations of Call of Duty are or review a game that was only released in India. Plus, many English-speaking editors only speak English (especially in the United States), so even if foreign language materials are available, they're not very useful to many editors (and translation services like Google Translate  don't always help a great deal). Efforts should be made to cover non-English aspects of everything on the 'pedia, but I don't know how that could improve. "Should WP:VG's coverage prioritize the most popular topics even if they are restricted to a narrow set of countries/languages or should it make efforts toward a broader universal perspective?" – Touched on above, but a universal perspective would be preferable, but I don't see it happening any time soon. "If it should be more universal in scope, can you think of any good ways to boost coverage of non-English gaming topics?" – Answered above: nope. I suppose we could initiate an outreach to other foreign language Wikipedias, but I'm sure most editors there face the same language barrier we do. WP:VG Newsletter - One of the hot-button questions in past ArbCom elections has been the diminishing role of Wikipedia's Civility policy  just as  Ignore All Rules  has faded before it. For some the content-based edit history and the capacity of an editor to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia negates whatever uncivil behavior he engages in. We've seen civility problems become an issue at WP:VG in the last few years with similar resulting outcomes as in the greater community. Do you think this is healthy for the project? Should we be doing more to discourage incivility and to be more welcoming to our new recruits? Or should we strive to be less sensitive to the insensitivity of others? WP:VG Newsletter - Can you remember any specific campaigns, project-wide drives, or other initiatives from the past that have been particularly effective at WP:VG? Have you ever worked on such a project? What worked and what didn't?   WP:VG Newsletter - Where do you see WP:VG or Wikipedia generally in another 10 years? Debates over the idea of collaborative encyclopedia building have raged back and forth in academia, but this is gradually settling down. Do you think the WP:VG side of Wikipedia will maintain the position in gaming culture it has today or is it likely to lose or gain stock among readers? WP:VG Newsletter - Given WP:VG's size and the scope of responsibility for our few admins, do you think there should be further stratification within the regular rank and file WP:VGer? Some have suggested that an "Expert" classification should be implemented, for example, for editors who can furnish credentials relating to the gaming industry or for authors or journalists who have worked in the field. Is this a good idea or are we asking for trouble if we seek micro-hierarchies like this? How common was "expert editing" in the early days of the project and if it has increased in commonality, has this been a boon? Has it been essential? WP:VG Newsletter - What do you say to Wikipedia's and WP:VG's naysayers? Wikipedia comes up often enough in online discussions forums, real-time chat, social networking posts, etc. There are inevitably those who will go to great lengths to point out its flaws. Does this prompt you to jump to its defense, do you just ignore these posts, or do you often agree with them and expand on their arguments? Do you think your arguments in this context have grown stronger over the last 10 years?
 * WolfenSilva - I *think* the project was born at a time there were many specialized sub-groups concerning with specific topics, coordinating efforts and reach some sort of consistency throughout videogame pages. I recall trying to find a standard for the infoboxes was particularly fun, and the Gaming Collaboration of the Week was a fantastic way to develop a common style before standards were (strictly) enforced. My memory is kind of hazy, but I remember users like Jacoplane, K1Bond or Frecklefoot (hope I'm not misspelling anyone).
 * Frεcklεfσσt - "Can you give us any insights into the founding of the WikiProject?" – No, not really. I joined after it was already founded.
 * WolfenSilva - It has upsides and downsides. The upside is that it all looks much more consistent all-around now than it was 10 years ago. The downside - as it was when bureaucrats started to take over - is that after a while one wonders why contribute something that might be declared non-notable or on violation of rule x.y.z and will be deleted. Many of those were not even related to the project - just cruising around, finding something to nitpick about to show service - I recall people voting to delete pages based on "notability" on topics they could not have any sort of expertise on it.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - I definitely think it's a boon. The project has become more structured and more closely aligns with Wikipedia's standards. Original research  is nearly forbidden and editors really care about the content of articles. It's also led to more of a consistent structure to articles. For example, in most articles you're going to find Gameplay and Reception sections. I think the current level of regimentation may be daunting for new members, but they can be mentored as long we remember to  not bite the newcomers.
 * WolfenSilva - I was active mostly in videogames and football/soccer, which were the two things taking most of the time of 20-year old me. I haven't edited a page in a very long time, although I've considered going back at it. I still play videogames, although not as often. Just finished Halo Reach a few days ago, and bought Worms on GOG, so it still takes away some time from me.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - "Where have you been most active in Wikipedia?" – Mostly in the video game and video game industry  arena, though I often contribute to articles I have no particular interest in. If I stumble across an article that needs copyediting, I normally go ahead and do it, no matter what the topic is.
 * WolfenSilva - Generally, articles are much longer and better constructed than they were, in part thanks to the increase in quotable sources and bigger access to industry/trade information. I think it will get better with time, as some sites like Polygon go deeper on some topics where the info were just small phrases dropped here and there and the collective heritage built from playground hearsay and thereby unquotable.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - "Which aspects of WP:VG do you think have improved the most in the last 10 years?" – Wikipedia's five pillars  are definitely important, and the project's dedication to them is a boon to the project and Wikipedia as a whole. I've seen more dedication to them over the years. For example, no matter how much you love a game, you must present the material in a  neutral point of view . The project is very concerned about finding reliable sources for all material in any given article. I don't think this was of much concern early on. But that goes for Wikipedia as a whole, and not just the WP:VG project.
 * WolfenSilva - Well, most of my issues with WP in general were due to the bureaucracy. Writing something and letting it go to waste was frustrating, and unfortunately, back then Wikia was just a small child. My advice would be to deal with these kinds of things by picking up what's not suitable and find it a home elsewhere.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - "What advice would you give to a new member of WP:VG (or a new Wikipedia editor generally) today?" – Read the Manual of Style . Try small edits at first to get familiar with wikimarkup. Leave your  personal passions at the door . Try to have reliable, verifiable sources for any claims you make in any article. If they're interested in editing video game articles, I'd tell them to watch the  Video Games WikiProject talk page, even if they don't contribute to any of the topics. Seeing what's discussed will help them get familiar with what is expected and desirable.
 * WolfenSilva - I wasn't there, so I'm out of the loop, but I think the biggest battle was making WP also a place for a somewhat comprehensive source on videogames. I recall many people were opposed to feature articles that fell outside the scope of common encyclopaedias.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - Initially, as I touched on above, just nailing down what actually constituted a video game. Recently, probably nailing down what should and should not be included in the video game infobox. These are not epic challenges, but nothing else comes to mind at the moment.
 * WolfenSilva - My biggest problem of policies was trying a one size fits all method for topics where primary, secondary or tertiary sources were freely available, and topics where there was very little information available. For instance, the "no original research" policy was important for topics where there was enough peer reviewed information available, while in many general gaming terms, all we had were terms that we all knew what they meant, but writing something about the term, what it meant, etc. would fall under original research. The notability is another - visiting my page, I've noticed Attention to Detail, a company with two very popular racing game 32-bit era games and a BAFTA winning sports game was deleted, very likely because of lack of notability and a stub status. One size fits all works for general style, but in terms of sourcing, notability, it's a huge problem because videogames are not tv series, movies or music, let alone maths or astronomy.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - I don't think having a MoS specifically for video game articles is a Bad Thing. The general MoS can't cover every topic in detail. I'm not opposed to every WikiProject having their own MoS which deals in detail with issues they specifically face.
 * Andrevan - Wikipedia's broader policies take precedence over WikiProjects
 * WolfenSilva - The "Sega Genesis" thing was perhaps the most bizarre issue I've seen. Personally, to me it's the Mega Drive, for the simple reason it would also be the Mega Drive in the US if it wasn't for some (IIRC) ski apparel company that trademarked the name first. The english wikipedia is also the main hub of information, with visitors from all around the world, so it should also keep a somewhat international view of the topics at hand. I think the videogame is somewhat globalized - I don't think there's many games that are massively popular in one area and unknown in others, with the exception being Japan or some sports titles, but if there's something relevant on an area, with enough material to make a decent article, it should be turned into a priority.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - "Let's talk about the Sega Genesis, er... Mega Drive , um... Sega Megasis. Do we go with the more commonly-used name or the first name?" – This is a problem that I deal with often lately. Some editors prefer the first name the game was released under, which can often be Japanese for Capcom games, for example. Others prefer the North American name, since this is the English Wikipedia, which may or may not be the same as for other English-speaking areas, such as the UK. I lean towards the NA name since it will usually be the name most familiar to English-speaking readers, even though this may marginalize some of them. I think the NA name serves the greatest number of English-speaking readers.
 * Andrevan - "Wikipedia's broader policies take precedence over WikiProjects" also applies to common name issues which is why the article is Sega Genesis.
 * WolfenSilva - Well, not being part of WP anymore makes me somewhat detached from the reality of the situation, but this seems the same as when an actor/musician/director does something terrible, and then everyone splits between the "burn everything" and "separate the art from the artist" sides, doesn't it? I think it's important to draw the line where someone's behaviour is preventing more people from matching or improving his own output (accounting in toxic behaviour, etc).
 * Frεcklεfσσt - I think BOTH. We should always strive to be civil, but as a netizen, people should realize many others have the tendency to be jerks behind the wall of anonymity. But uncivility can drive away new recruits, and that's unfortunate.
 * Andrevan - I completely disagree with you - civility and IAR are both extremely important, and contributions do not negate incivility
 * WolfenSilva - Oh, yeah, as I've said above, the collaboration of the week was very fun, in part because we had people chiming in new bits and then someone cleaning up and getting sources. I think that was a pivotal moment in the increase of quality of the articles, because instead of being mostly a one man job, there was a focused improvement to bring an article up to standards.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - I know some task forces have had great successes, but I've never participated in any, usually because they're focussed on topics I have little knowledge or interest in. The last project I worked on was the arcade game infobox, which has been supplanted by the project-wide video game infobox. It was an interesting little project, but it's results are now moot (not that the current video game infobox is bad, it's actually really similar to what we came up with for the arcade game-specific infobox).
 * WolfenSilva - I think Wikipedia will continue to grow, and as the story of videogames keeps being written, wikipedia will be there to log it.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - I haven't thought about this. This is a pretty lively project and I don't see it dying down any time soon, but I don't know if we have any clout among non-editing video gamers at large. Wikipedia is the first resource I turn to for information on a video game, but I don't know if non-editors do or not. Video games are a very popular topic today and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future, and Wikipedia is gaining exposure, so my prediction is that it will only gain stock in the next ten years.
 * Andrevan - I'm not sure how the project or Wikipedia will change in the next 10 years.
 * WolfenSilva - The problem is defining expertise: I've been playing for 20 years, work in the retail area, was involved in a couple of open source projects as a translator and graphic/concept artist, do a lot of design work regarding videogames for a gaming lounge that I expect in time to turn into a small museum (I'm mostly interested in terms of preservation of videogames than actually playing), wrote a few texts about the history and market for a retrogaming store webpage and even coded a few crappy games some 15 years ago. At the same time, I know many people who end up writing about gaming accepted because it was just a paying gig and had very little interest outside their work. This is a "Render unto Caesar" case - if there's a doubt regarding producing, ask a producer, if it's some arcane trick to get a few extra bytes of memory from the controller buffer, ask a programmer. I don't think there should be hierarchies, but categories. It's good to have people with experience on all sides to write a solid article.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - I think giving people something of an "expert" credentials would be a Bad Thing. As a professional video game developer, I think I would qualify for such a credential, but I don't think my edits to video game articles are any more notable than any other editor's. Some editors who have no connection to the industry apart from being players have constructed excellent video game articles. Editors tend to earn clout simply by their body of work and the strength of their arguments. I think this is the best way to handle issues in the project.
 * Andrevan - I disagree that experts or any kind of stratification can or should be implemented. Expert editing really never existed and couldn't.
 * WolfenSilva - Well, I ignore it because it's been way too many years of the same discussions over and over again, and there is nothing new under the sun.
 * Frεcklεfσσt - I just tell them to look at the article's references. You can't really trust one, single article. But you can look at the article's references to check the facts first-hand. And in the case of no or few references, a Wikipedia article is a great boon where there would otherwise be a void.