Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 10

A few sites for Sonic X, a current FAC


During his source review, 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.


 * Games Asylum: Linked to by N4G for a feature on Olympics games, a review of a DS game called Bookstore Dream, a Kinect buyer's guide, and a review of a Pac-Man game; writer cited by Eurogamer for information about handheld game consoles. The site has been run by three users since its inception, one of them being Matt Gander of Retro Gamer. According to this, the site was "invited to actual media events, received review code from virtually every publisher, and even hardware" until financial issues made this difficult; the same link mentions The Sunday Times describing the site as "overwhelmingly text based" and PSM calling it "borderline pointless" - neither one a criticism of its reliability or editorial policy. Tezero (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * from my research and from the wayback machine. At least in the past it was a serious site. It is even in their about me, that they were more serious at one point. And were actually striving to becoming something bigger that they are now. What I Can Tell from the writing and also from other sources  Is that Games Asylum at least when Matt is writing for them can be considered a reliable source. (Which is the majority of it, I think?) NathanWubs (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Inside Gaming Daily: Linked to by N4G numerous times, by ArsTechnica about HDCP being enabled on the PS4 as well as the PS3, by VideoGamer.com about the price of the PS4/Vita bundle, and by GameSpot about the release of a Kinect-free Xbox one in summer 2014 (a claim that Microsoft denied). It is, per this description, Machinima.com's outlet for gaming news and editorials. Per the same link, there is a set list of writers; outside contributions are presumably not accepted. Tezero (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, after the reading about me, I did some background checks. I knew that they came first from machinima doing a show. Then they split of having their own youtube(which is mostly opinion style from what I can tell) And their own site. Their own site has indeed a staff of writters. After doing the background check it seems that most of them have quite some video game writing under their belt. On the site a lot of their writing seems quite professional. Not to mention just as you showed they have coverage from quite a few sources. So I would find them reliable in a lot of cases. NathanWubs (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * GameBreaker: Difficult to find verifiable links to as it's such a generic term used widely outside video gaming, but Joystiq ran a feature on GameBreaker, its founder Gary Gannon, and the MMO community in general. The piece states that "If you don't know the name Gary Gannon, you will soon enough" and that Gannon is well-known and -respected in the MMO community, particularly for a podcast he runs that "started getting all this interest from game companies." Gannon summarized the site's current status thus: "We're moving in to the phase that I always saw Gamebreaker as, which is the CNN or ESPN of video games. We have a Star Wars machinima show coming, more round-table shows, more game-specific shows. I really want to move more into esports in 2012, so more StarCraft coverage, more League of Legends coverage, and lots more." Tezero (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What I can find on gamebreaker and their own site as well is that its mostly a site that copies things. The company that they are running under though as a umbrella is trying to become a gaming network on youtube and twitch ala machinima. At the moment I cannot see it as reliable at all, as a lot of work they do is copying stuff, video's etc from other sources. Without even any commentary on it. And in a lot of cases the commentary that is written is so small that it will probably not be cited. Only thing I found is the same as you the joystick article but any follow up is slim to none. Some mentions here and there and that is it. Only thing I cannot comment on is their podcasts as I have not had the time to watch those. NathanWubs (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'm finding nothing at all on GamesFirst!, so I think I'll be removing that. It's frustrating; that's the source I want to use the most. Tezero (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Gamesfirst was a magazines that was published online by ohio university it seems. It makes a lot of claims. Like being the first or even being popular. but when referenced to anything else that is not the case. Only other thing I can find is a convention for game developers that is not even related to the original site. Their writing is not too bad though, but what would you expect when students in journalism were running the whole site.  Using it as a reliable source is a no, as its not notable. NathanWubs (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to respond to this earlier, as I looked in the sources. But some real life stuff came up, so I had only time for some smaller stuff. Anyways. I read up as I will respond  to Tezero. NathanWubs (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

old GameSpot date
Guys, please tell me I'm blind or something. I can't find the date of this article's publication. 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)
 * I don't see it either. I've noticed that sometimes very old GameSpot or IGN articles omit that sort of information. Not sure why. Sergecross73   msg me  10:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * May 30, 1997. On the run now, but I can look into the Reuters press release later, if I remember czar ♔   12:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I sure would appreciate that! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 12:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , wasn't able to find it, but I'm going to ask around to see if a database carries it. In other news, the original link appears to have the date now czar ♔   16:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. I appreciate you thinking of it.  I had never heard of Factiva before.  We should mention meta-resources like that, in the docs.  Do you want to write something like that based on your experience of what that (and hopefully others) are good for? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So it tis!! My citation metadata had said May 30, 1997 from the last time I'd visited it months ago, but then upon revisiting it recently, I couldn't figure out why!  I guess it's the ghost in the shell.  Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , forgot to report back, but I found the original release in Factiva. The hunt led me to the top reference librarian here. Looks like the secondary source was sufficient in this case. czar ♔   01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the reason For no dates and.or names on the articles is that the site was quite the different beast in those days.  There was just no mention of dates or names during that time. Example; Blast from the past gamespot 1998. NathanWubs (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I get that impression too. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 12:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You sometimes see more recent articles doing that, too - although in this case, I just try to find when the oldest comments were posted. Tezero (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

AlterGamer
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)
 * It does not seem to have any worth. As everything that I have read about the writers is that none of them have any professional writing credits to their name. The site itself seems quite obscure. If I can believe the tracker that I found. It said the site had about 1500 people coming to their site.  (only know that as its one of the first sites that come up, lol) NathanWubs (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A few sites for Freedom Planet, a future GAN
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)
 * Ok, I had some time left today, so I thought I would go over them. In sections. So that if something comes up in the middle that I can. just continue later.


 * Gamerscape There are two sites for this: Gamerescape 1 and Gamerescape 2.I think the second site is the one in question. but I went over both so that I can give a small review of them both.
 * The first one would be a situational source. I would deny it outright but the thing is that it does have some compelling interviews with developers of games. Like This..
 * The second site on the other hand I cannot give a pass even on a situational source. Do not get me wrong the two authors of the site are indeed working hard. It looks quite professional. But the authors themselves are not notable at the moment or have anything behind their name that would give them credit to be a reliable source. NathanWubs (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Meristation This site had previous discussion. In that discussion it seemed that it was decided to be a situational source, and in some of the other consensus that comes forward as well. However, I would argue that its a full source. That it should be used especially when no english sources are available. Some people said it is local. But it seems to be quite international and that it is embraced at least by the spanish communities around the world. Its has lots of cites and the writers are professional. So I see no issues to make this a full source and to use it also in other gaming articles if there is no coverage or if the coverage is better than their english counterparts. NathanWubs (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * NerdReactor* This is pretty cool dang site. However, its created for nerds by nerds. It is enjoying some popularity, but is not really that cited or that big in the industries in general. However, just as with the Gamerescape I think the site can probably be used for their interviews, if there is no other source for something similar. But at the moment they are not notable enough to overcome their none-writing backgrounds like some other people on the internet have done by become important enough to be noticed. NathanWubs (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Polygon
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)
 * Isn't it already checked off in the Checklist section? GamerPro64  17:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is, but it's not in the List section. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I already thought it was on there too. Yeah, put it on. Sergecross73   msg me  17:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What's even the point of having approved sources listed separately? I see no reason not to add it; it just seems a little odd that there's two sections. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically the Checklist is where you would go if you have a source in mind that you want to check for RS status. You might link to the checklist in a discussion about whether certain sources are sufficient to back up a claim in an article. The Tables are where you would go if you had a topic in mind and didn't know what sources would be considered reliable. You might point a new editor to the tables to help them find sources whose scope matches their intended topic. Ideally they should match, but then they're kind of duplicative. The idea of merging them comes up from time to time. See here (at the bottom of the thread) for the last time the idea was proposed and here for the time previous to that. My feelings on the question remain the same as I said in the last two discussions. -Thibbs (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that if we're introducing a new VG editor to how to source, we want to direct editors to those tables over the lists as "preferred" sources, before having to turn towards the lists. These are sources that have a large # of use of WP, have been reviewed repeatedly, etc. --M ASEM (t) 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks! Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamesided
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)

Tech Crunch
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)
 * Reliable - Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've used it as a source in articles, or to prove notability at WP:AFD. Pretty sure it's considered reliable. Being owned by a company like AOL is a good sign that they're going to be a legit team with editorial policy and whatnot, and not just a bunch of random dudes who started up s blog a few months ago. Sergecross73   msg me  15:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For reference, I collated all previous reliability discussions of this site back in 2012. The thread can be reviewed here. Essentially those in favor cite its good contributors and those opposed cite WP:BLOGS. Either way I'd love to see a consensus formed. -Thibbs (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I'm surprised I didn't comment on it back then. Yeah, the areas that their staff have written at before writing there seems like even more ammunition for it being reliable... Sergecross73   msg me  18:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Punisher sourcing
I have a question about the sourcing used in The Punisher (1993 video game) up for discussion at WT:VG czar ♔   20:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

APGNation
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)
 * Wow, to say those 2 links represent discussion that show a consensus for its reliability is rather misleading. The first looks more like "1 person supported it, another said to ask about it here", while the second one is entirely about Cracked as a source, with the exception of a passing mention about APGN. I'm not familiar with the site, and haven't looked into it yet, but wow, what a shady set up... Sergecross73   msg me  18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. Their About Us page includes a majority of editors and writers with no editing or journalism credentials. They have a founder still in college, an editor-in-chief who graduated last year, and a 14-year-old writer. Definitely not the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require. And there's the little things, like no details on editorial policies or a physical address. The site is slick and I could see it becoming a great reliable indie site down the road, but it's not that now. Woodroar (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable Have you seen their About Us? 6 out of their 11 have a BS and 2 have AA. Five of them have credentials in Journalism or English. In defense for the 14-year-old writer, most of the writers (major gaming news sites) don't have any sort of credentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.33.82 (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great, but...not the whole picture as to how we determine if a source is reliable. Sergecross73   msg me  23:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it determine if a source is reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.33.82 (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's writers having a history in the industry, having an editorial policy and editorial oversight, other reliable sources using its information, meeting the standards at WP:RS, etc Sergecross73   msg me  00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Maximum
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)
 * Retro Gamer did a 4-page retrospective about Maximum magazine in issue #25 (pp.44-47). I just re-read that and it looks good to me. Here are the main points from Retro Gamer:
 * Founder and main editor Richard Leadbetter previously worked for Sega Saturn Magazine, co-founder and art director Gary Harrod previously worked for Official Nintendo Magazine.
 * The mag was intended to provide "collectible coverage". It was influenced by Japanese strategy guides and intended to review games and also to serve as companion pieces once the game was bought. Each game reviewed saw 6-14 pages of coverage. Some games saw more than 20 pages of coverage.
 * The low issue count is attributed to missed publication deadlines and coverage of less popular topics. Staff were apparently also courted by DieHard GameFan. Also significant was competition from Computer and Video Games.
 * All in all, the main point that the Retro Gamer article keeps returning to is that this was a magazine whose main emphasis was quality. Given the credentials of the editors running the operations and Retro Gamer's blessing re: quality, I believe the source to be an RS for our purposes. -Thibbs (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

TechRaptor
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)


 * Well I looked over the staff roll but I don't see a lot in the way of credentials. There are some college students and some graduates and of course there are quite a few video game fans, but have any of them working within the industry or written for other RSes in the past? Just having a staff roll and an editorial policy are good signs, but they aren't conclusive. Similarly, interviews with big-name interviewees is a good sign, but it's far from determinative. One of the key questions is whether a putative RS has a "reputation for fact-checking an accuracy". To look for a reputation we look to see what the other estalished RSes are saying about the source. On my own I see VG247 citing them here. Apart from this I find little or nothing. The CinemaBlend reference would be good to link, however it looks like it may not be considered an RS here (see this discussion). Overall I don't see sufficient evidence that TechRaptor is reliable at this time. -Thibbs (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is ResearchGate reliable?
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)
 * ResearchGate is a social networking website. It is not an RS itself, but that doesn't mean that nothing hosted on Research Gate can be used. The question you've asked is kind of like asking if Twitter or YouTube is reliable. The host site is not really what you want to be asking about. It really all depends who is the author of the piece in question. In the case of Blackburn, it looks like there is some indication he is reliable. He's cited by RSes Gamasutra, Gamezone, and CD-Action. His Comp Sci PhD appears to be in the area of social network analysis. I think there's a decent case that he's reliable for that specific topic. -Thibbs (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As above, the site is a depository for articles, by all kinds of authors. I think I've seen peer-reviewed academic papers republished there; these would be very reliable, although you'd probably want to cite the journal where it was originally published. In this case, the uploader is an associate prof and has a PhD, so looks reliable overall (also considering Blackburn). The stuff published there is serious scholarly material, but I imagine (not sure) that members include postgrad students and so on, which won't pass our RS standards (no peer-review or editorial process on the site). But in this case looks good. bridies (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lost Levels
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)
 * Makes sense to me. It has a good reputation. I've seen it mentioned in academic writing a few times and some of our RSes cite it (e.g. Ars Technica and Wired. -Thibbs (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Might as well add that it was used in this J Parish 1UP article too czar ♔   22:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Retro Gamer cites them as well and devoted a subsection to them in their "Retro Gaming Sites" side-bar on pg.89 of Issue #30 (2006) where they described them as "excellent", "fascinating", and "great". -Thibbs (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support it too, per the pedigree above. Also, it recently was used in a passed GA - Sonic Xtreme. Sergecross73   msg me  22:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Erik Kain & Co on Youtube
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)
 * Forbes is already on the situational side of things. I would think itd be a "no" for a touchy, controversial, BLP type situation like all that Gamergate commotion. Sergecross73   msg me  17:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your reasoning behind it? BLP concerns can be avoided by simply not using it as a source for that aspect of the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Kain is not Forbes staff, he is Forbes contributor. Very different. Per the chart on the main page of WP:VG/S.
 * Forbes publishes content from salaried Forbes staff, and a vetted community of non-salaried Forbes contributors. Articles written by Forbes staff are reliable. Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable. Editors are encouraged to find alternatives to contributor pieces.
 * So basically, the current consensus is that we're already trying to avoid using him when working through Forbes. To use his unpublished work on Youtube would be even worse. And considering "GamerGate" is one giant BLP issue, that would make it an even worse issue. Sergecross73   msg me  18:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, but what about the other people in the video? It is published, on Youtube. With industry people, two of them editors, one of them probably the most respected gaming vlogger in the world. Seems odd to not consider it reliable. What about it is unreliable? Willhesucceed (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Youtube hosts the videos, but they don't "publish" them in the sense that we need a reliable source to be. Youtube does not have editorial oversight. They don't fact-check video for mistakes. There's no criteria for being able to put something on Youtube - anyone can do it. I recommend you do more research on what exactly it means for a source to be reliable on Wikipedia. Perhaps then this will make more sense. Newcommers often confuse their own personal viewpoints of reliability with Wikipedia's definition. (No offense. When I first started, I thought Gamefaqs was a reliable source, because I liked a bunch of their Faqs. Great. But it definitely doesn't meet the standards of a reliable source because it violates WP:SPS.) Sergecross73   msg me  18:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication": there are four people there whose job it is to track Gamergate goings-on, and they would correct each other if anything's wrong.
 * "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" No problem here.
 * "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." No problem here at all.
 * "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." In short: as long as we avoid living persons, no problem.
 * "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Seems fine.
 * "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive." No problem here.
 * "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person" We can avoid this by not using this as a source for living persons.
 * ^ For what it's worth ^. Wikipedia is too averse to new media. Feel free not to reply. But now I know I tried. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Unreliable - per comments above. Sergecross73   msg me  18:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're using it as a self-published sources for the interview, then use it like any other interview. Anything the participants say would be on the authority of whatever editorial background they each have. I'd be hesitant to source facts to any impromptu video, nevertheless a Google Hangout. czar ♔   00:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to keep in mind, though, that per WP:SPS, such sources cannot be used in the BLP context even if the source is an expert. The Gamergate business isn't strictly a BLP, but BLP considerations are redolent throughout the article. -Thibbs (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a vast majority this GamerGate stuff falls under the BLP jurisdiction. We're not sourcing how good a Mario game is. It's real life people we're dealing with, and issues related to their sexuality, careers, education, etc. Consensus is already to avoid this author when there is limited editorial oversight. How can we okay his use when self-publishing, in such a contentious area of editing, ?  Sergecross73   msg me  01:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally depends how it's being used. I thought we were discussing it in general, so I was saying the only way it could be used is within the SPS guidelines (e.g., to source an individual's own opinions, similar to a blog or Twitter post, not that those opinions would be notable on any page other than their own). I thought I read on someone's talk page that the Gamergate stuff is under BLP sanctions anyway, but I wouldn't use anything other than rock solid sources on such a controversial article anyway. (Shorter answer: yes, it's unreliable.) czar ♔   03:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be used, but it's unreliable? You mean as regards BLP stuff. That's fine. There are non-BLP stuff in the Gamergate controversy that it can be used as a source for. Also please see below. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be used in really limited circumstances, such as WP:BLPSPS circumstances. The interview can be cited as a blog or Twitter post would be cited when there is no secondary source available. This is to say that there is no feasible reason to use it on an article such as Gamergate, which should only be using rock solid sources. czar ♔   04:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of a non-BLP statement you'd use the source for, hypothetically? I agree with Czar, I can't think of a realistic scenario for its use here. Sergecross73   msg me  10:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To reiterate an earlier point: "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable" As I've noted, two are editors in chief for gaming publications, and I'd further like to note that two, Bain and Bonanno, are also lawyers, so there's no way they'd let the discussion get into legally troubled waters. Any time BLP concerns rear their head, it's only to note that it's reasonable for there to be speculation about conduct. Never are allegations made. Everyone concerned has had a lot of experience with BLP concerns. There's no reason to doubt that this is a rigorous and reliable panel. Of course when it comes to BLP concerns the subjects should be covered by multiple sources, but if corroborated, the video should also be fine to use. There's no reason to de facto exclude this source.
 * Now as to the non-BLP example: everyone on the video agrees that the way the media are treating the matter is inflaming the situation. They mention no names. It's a general criticism of the situation. That would seem to me to be allowable, e.g.:
 * "The media's general reaction in the wake of worries related to ethics in the industry's press was criticised as not engaging the concerns, and for actually inflaming matters by avoiding them."
 * Rough idea. There's a lot in the video of this sort of analysis that should be perfectly allowable. This panel gives the topics a more rigorous vetting, scrutiny, and treatment than most articles, inside or outside of the industry.
 * Thanks for taking the time to consider. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that sort of statement could easily be sourced by any number sources that have strong consensus for being reliable. With all the drama that goes along with GamerGate (people getting emotional, BLP violations, NPOV violations, formal mediation now) it seems like you'd be better off sticking with other sources. There are enough things to argue about as it is, and I imagine any progress is a slow crawl as it is, I imagine. Sergecross73   msg me  22:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ya, but if it's not included anywhere else, then there's no reason not to use this as a source. But I'm not going to try to include it now. You're right. There's no point in trying. It's not like most of the people there are trying to make a good article. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith czar ♔   13:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes' / Erik Kain's reliability
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. [http://news.yahoo.com/why-xbox-one-price-cut-huge-mistake-172317006.html 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)


 * It's hard to evaluate how you want to use this source without an actual example of how you want to use this source. The above, at its best, would make him a content expert if we were to cite and attribute his opinion. But for facts, the reliability comes from the credentialing body and not the author. So it's that Slate editorial policy is different from Forbes, etc. and not that Kain is universally "reliable" apropos of nothing. czar ♔   04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Czar. The sources you have provided do show that he's not a nobody. Additionally there are several RSes on the list that reference his writings. In a general sense it would probably be ok to cite him in many circumstances. That's not to say, however, that he's always citeable. We already discussed the fact that BLPs give rise to an elevated standard of scrutiny, but even beyond that the determination of a source as an expert source doesn't mean he's an expert in all topics. He wouldn't be an expert, for instance, on feminism or on sociology or on law even if those topics intersected with video games. So context is critical. You shouldn't expect his placement in the WP:VG/RS charts as a guarantee of his citeability in any VG-related situation. -Thibbs (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as BLPs go, his word alone isn't good enough at Forbes since there's not much oversight, but at least as a general commentator on video games, video game culture, the industry, etc. a lot of reliable sources believe he is himself a reliable source. A few times now discussions have been had which try to reduce his notability or reliability re: non-BLP matters, and I'd like to prevent future arguments about him as a source. They're a waste of time and make things more difficult than they need to be.
 * For example: "The more I see of Kain's work the more concerned I am about using him in this article. We have a plethora of much more reliable sources." Much more reliable sources than someone who's been noted in all of the above RSs? This is the sort of argument I hope to avoid. Some sort of note in the Forbes entry seems to me to be appropriate.Willhesucceed (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When it comes to BLPs, especially high-profile BLPs, we have to get it right, and that often requires vetting each and every source. A source could be considered reliable for, say, video game plot analysis, but unreliable in a BLP situation. Woodroar (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand BLP concerns. My issue is that I would like some sort of recognition of him as a reliable source on non-BLP concerns. E.g. "PC gaming is more popular than consoles", "people are angry about DLC", "the relationship between publishers and reviewers is fine", "Japanese games are not misogynistic". These examples (made up) all speak in generalities, so should be perfectly allowable. But some people question his reliability even for this, although he's clearly considered to have some sort of pedigree when it comes to industry matters. That's what I'd like to put a rest to. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A simple note alongside Forbes to the effect of "Kain is de facto reliable except as related to BLP" would suffice. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:40, 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. 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)
 * I'm explaining myself poorly. Obviously opinion is opinion. What I mean is de facto notable, I guess, in that if he has an opinion about something related to the video game industry, it's noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Same story—not everything X video game reviewer says is inherently noteworthy. Almost all SPS uses are on a case-by-case basis czar ♔   19:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And this also goes for non-SPS RSes speaking on an area where they are not experts. Being an expert at video games might allow a journalist like Kain to be cited for the factual claim that "the latest Zelda game is inspired by the early Infocom adventures" (hypothetical example), but probably not for the factual claim that "the healthiest way for female gamers to deal with misogyny in video gaming culture is to ignore it" (again a hypothetical example). There's some degree of slip room, but if a claim like the latter hypothetical is challenged then it will almost certainly be excluded despite the fact that the author is a video game expert. -Thibbs (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Situational - Usuable if being reported by other reliable sources, like IGN, Gamasutra, ect. (Not Forbes, which has limited editorial oversight.) Unusable if being self-published, and/or its BLPs or commentary on social commentary/feminism etc. Per Thibbs/Czar's line of reasoning. Sergecross73   msg me  19:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This whole situation seems like Willhesucceed is trying to undermine Gamergate controversy by discrediting one of the sources, as an early article contributed by Kain is used throughout the page.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Kain is generally acceptable for non-BLP claims, though I think Forbes contributors who are not bonafide experts should be used minimally overall. Right now Kain is used mostly in conjunction with other sources and the rest basically consists of noting his opinion. Without doubt his views on a subject should be regarded as significant.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Impressive
Impressive list. Let me know if anyone has any questions about Polish-language websites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer! The more international our coverage the closer we come to NPOV. The last editor I knew here who knew Polish was indef blocked about a month ago so this is very helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Le Monde's Pixels
We need more international sources.

Le Monde.

That is all. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Le Monde is reliable, but I doubt that's all we'll need as far as international sources are concerned. Our South American coverage is hugely lacking. Brazil and Mexico both have decent VG markets and I'd love to see RSes from either of them. Russia and China are also relatively under-covered areas despite having decent VG markets. I've been collecting sources from all three regions actually. -Thibbs (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I simply meant that Pixels doesn't need any more justification than being published in Le Monde.
 * I do have more reliable international sources. I'll post them here some time. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Keeping in mind that a reputation (for fact checking and accuracy) is one of the key requirements to reliability I've relied on the length of time a publication has been in operation as my best proxy metric for reliability in countries like those I mentioned above (Brazil, China, Russia). We were able to identify a good number of Polish RSes via pl.wikipedia's WP:VG group as well since their version of WP:RS mirrors our own. There's no better way to adjudge reliability in my view than discussion between editors who are native speakers (as we saw at pl.wikipedia). -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as I've mentioned to some other editors, you're more likely to get input if you try to state a case for or against the source. Sometimes, if people just drop of 5-6 sources and say "Look into it"...they sometimes get overlooked/ignored. Sergecross73   msg me  15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Rev3Games (again)
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. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 06:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry we dropped the ball on that. It looks decent to me. The custom google search seems to suggest that the site has a good reputation among the RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Fake sources
This is the.

I would like to request a statement from this WikiProject for the Sources guideline regarding 's essay,. 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.
 * Reception


 * References


 * References of references

84.127.80.114 (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ...What about it did you want to discuss...? Sergecross73   msg me  11:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The WikiProject's official statements on reliable sourcing are these: WP:VG/RS and WP:VG/MOS. WP:VG also relies on Wikipedia's WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:JUSTANESSAY.
 * With that said I don't speak for the WikiProject, but here's my take on the suggestion in the essay:

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. The most obvious example of this is if a reliable source (let's say the Wall Street Journal) reports what another reliable source has said (e.g. the WSJ prints this hypothetical line: "In his page 4 column, 'Aikenthoughts', The Washington Post's Frederick Aiken noted that video games outsold phonographs for the first time since the great crash of '65."). In this situation it would be skirting the rules to say "In 1872 video games outsold phonographs. " The editor placing the claim in Wikipedia would not actually be in the position to verify the claim, but would rely on the veracity of the original reporting source (in this case the Wall Street Journal). In this case there is a high likelihood that the listed source is accurate even if unverified. But is this reliance only justifiable because the source is reliable? Not really. In my second example consider the situation where you, the Wikipedia researcher, locates a fan forum discussing Industrial Era video games. Fan1 says "Hey guys, check out this scan from page 4 of last week's The Washington Post where Fred Aiken claims video games are back in a big way!". The linked scan is now a broken link so you can't even verify the scan. Given that alone it would be inappropriate to repeat the fan's claims in Wikipedia. However imagine if Fan2 then said "I love how he says they outsold phonographs but he doesn't even mention wax cylinders" and Fan3 responded "Yeah I know. Why did Aiken limit his claim to bleeding edge tech?" and Fan4 responded "Well even the great Edison himself would tell you that phonographs are the future. I support Aiken's claims." and Fan 5 responded "Well I didn't believe Aiken would say that, but there it is in black and white. What a fool." In a situation like this, with each additional comment there is an increasing likelihood that the source is corroborated and a diminishing likelihood that all participating fans were mistaken or colluding to present a false discussion of a source in order to provide a hoax for future readers. As before, there can be a high likelihood that the listed source is accurate when discussed by large numbers of editors even if it in fact unverified by the Wikipedia editor. Are there problems with this method? Yes.JimmyBlackwing himself describes it as an "underhanded method." To begin with it allows for the propagation of error. If the original source had erroneously reported some aspect of the claim (e.g. it was really Scott Bone's column, or it was really on page 12, etc.) then this error would be propagated to Wikipedia. Furthermore, for obvious reasons this method runs directly contrary to the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT guideline. So is it harmful? It has a higher-than-usual risk of error and for that reason it is officially deprecated, but Wikipedia does have countermeasures in place to guard against problems. Any editor can independently verify any claim and correct misinformation at any time. In addition any editor can challenge claims and their sources and then it is the responsibility of the party making the claim to back up their source. So the potential for harm is mitigated. Personally I would avoid this kind of sourcing, but as JimmyBlackwing suggests it happens fairly frequently. I've personally seen it many times in the context of foreign sources. For example when IGN reports a "shocking" Famitsu score and in the Wikipedia article only Famitsu is attributed by Wikipedia.


 * I've collapsed it above to avoid tl;dr syndrome. -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In your WSJ example, I think the expectation is to include both the Washington Post and the WSJ (per the example at WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). 84.127, the pages Thibbs cited are the closest you're going to get to an official statement. czar ♔   14:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this IP user has taken a sudden interest in that section of my essay, but I'll say three things. First, like Thibbs pointed out, I describe this as an "underhanded method"—it's not a great practice. Second, it's impossible to detect "fake" citations if they're done right, which makes it similarly impossible to regulate them. Third, they're discussed in the context of absolute-last-resort options, and they aren't explicitly endorsed. Can they damage Wikipedia? Yes. Like Thibbs said, it's better to avoid them. But savvy (and desperate) editors have always used and will always use them, so they might as well be out in the open. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's like how a number of liberals feel about legalizing abortion: it's not ideal, but it's preferable to the more dangerous alternative. In this case, that alternative might be leaving useful information out altogether, or attributing it to an unreliable source when you know with close to 100% certainty that it's indeed corroborated by the one you don't have access to. Tezero (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate the openness of this WikiProject. However, I am concerned about the comments I am reading. I suggest that the Sources guideline explain this temptation to use fake sources and strongly recommend to follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, without pointing to any "how to fake a source".
 * Of course, I may be wrong. If this WikiProject firmly believes that faking sources is an acceptable practice, I should seek advice elsewhere. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This WikiProject's Sources guideline (located at WP:VG/RS) does not "point to any 'how to fake a source'". You're confusing a user essay for the Sources guideline. And the user essay in question clearly describes faking it as an "underhanded method [that] thoroughly violates some Wikipedia policy or other." So I can't imagine that anybody would confuse this for a WP:VG guideline/policy suggestion. -Thibbs (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) There's no easy answer. As I said above (but might not have been clear enough about), there are disadvantages to strictly enforcing SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT here: we could be missing out on useful information that's basically certain to be not only true but verified in the sources, and users interested in keeping the information anyway might resort to unreliable sources. Are those worth being dishonest about what sources you have access to? I would say yes, but then that's why we're having this discussion. It's worth noting, moreover, that even having access to sources doesn't guarantee perfection: you could be misinterpreting them, or you might have had access to them but lost it (e.g. renting a book from the library). Tezero (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it may be a good idea to link "citing sources" from the second sentence of the WP:VG/RS lede to WP:CITE. Since WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is a subsection of WP:CITE, this should make it explicitly clear that WP:VG/RS follows Wikipedia guidelines in case anybody was unclear on that point. Any thoughts on this as a way to address 84.127.80.114's concerns? -Thibbs (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Oh, yeah, it's not our essay, so I agree that we shouldn't change it without asking. We shouldn't act as though it's without consequence, though; people do read it. Perhaps if a strong case emerges against "cheating" in this way, we could ask JB to consider changing it - though he still wouldn't be admonished otherwise. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This IP user is the first WPVG member to criticize the section, so I'm in no hurry to change it. I'd add that this all started when 84.127.80.114 left a cryptic and vaguely menacing message on my talk page, in response to my question about his seriousness at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (video game)—where he'd suggested the removal of notable reviews from the reception section. Then he took the essay issue here, for some reason. I can't tell whether he's confused or trying to cause trouble, but, either way, I think this thread can be put to bed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd assume it's just communications problems and the fact that this is a new user unfamiliar with Wikipedian culture. Nonetheless I think I'll link WP:VG/RS to WP:CITE as I suggested above unless anyone objects. It couldn't harm anything and hopefully it'll help. -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done in this edit. -Thibbs (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Curiously 84.127.80.114 seems to have been left with the impression that "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)
 * Oh, I think it is both acceptable and widely accepted - because it's about faking access to the sources when you basically already have it, not coming up with fake sources as the IP implies. I've clarified that there, with an analogy to a similar practice that's widely done in scientific articles. Tezero (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Industry awards
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)
 * Your stance mirrors mine actually, I don't really find any of these endless generic awards important. I just wasn't sure if there was enough policy-based reason to remove them from articles... Sergecross73   msg me  20:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In some or even most articles, I think WP:V and WP:UNDUE would apply, as industry awards are rarely covered by reliable sources. But it would be helpful if we included that in WPVG article guidelines. Currently, this reads "Magazine reviews, awards and quotes from game developers (except the developer's own advertising) can and should be used - those carry weight on their own", somewhat suggesting that awards are inherently important despite the fact that nobody cares about most of them. Woodroar (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Source reliability homework
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)
 * VentureBeat and Touch Arcade are regularly used on the project. I'm pretty certain they're generally considered reliable. Wall Street Journal would also definitely be reliable. (Assuming its someone from their staff, and not some random user blog, if they allow for that sort of thing like Forbes does.) Keep in mind that we usually only document video game sources. So, while the New York Times is definitely reliable and usable, we don't include it since its not video game centric. That's probably why VB and WSJ aren't on there already. Sergecross73   msg me  18:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pak-GN
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'm tempted. The site claims to be Pakistan's first news gaming site and I'd really love to see more international reception than we currently use. But sadly I'm afraid I have to come down against describing it as an RS for now. The about page is blank, and as far as a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is concerned, there isn't a single reference to them amids the listed RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

ScrewAttack for awards?
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)
 * The "notes and limitations" applying to this source in the table at WP:VG/RS suggest to me that the source could be used for awards since they represent opinion more than fact. As I said in another thread, however, the key issues when dealing with raw non-factual opinion claims are notability and dueness rather than reliability. -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Trust in Play
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)
 * Looks like most were added by Special:Contributions/Snakester95. They usually don't slip by like this... but I don't have any of those pages on my watchlist. czar ⨹   06:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✗ Textbook unreliable. No industry experience, no editorial or fact-checking policy. czar ⨹   06:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both counts. Unreliable per their self-description and an obvious (even undisguised) example of promotion. That said, promotional naivety often indicates goodfaith confusion with Wikipedia's rules rather than WP:NOTHERE intent. Hopefully I'm right and this won't become a problem. -Thibbs (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with my colleagues above.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

YouTube add?
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)
 * The YouTube video needs to meet copyright requirements, for certain, but keep in mind that more common today are gaming website using more video than text, particularly with interviews with developers. As long as the video in this case is properly created and owned by the gaming website which we would consider reliable normally, then that should be okay too. --M ASEM (t) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, YouTube is not unreliable in itself. It totally depends who is posting. An IGN video review posted on the IGN account is fine too. I'm not sure this needs to be explicitly stated (we don't do the same for Twitter/Facebook/whatever) apart from user-submitted content not being okay. czar ⨹   04:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend folding the new "Exception" section into the "notes and limitations" field for YouTube since YouTube is the only exception. Either that or we should rename the subsection to "Exceptions" and use it to list all exceptions that crop up. Any preference? -Thibbs (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've boldly made edits to your first proposal, Thibbs, and reworded the notes to be more in line with Masem/Czar's explanation. Sergecross73   msg me  13:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

✅ Thank you for considering this request! Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamesauce Pt. 2
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)
 * It looks pretty good to me. I'd be entirely comfortable approving it with the conditions Teancum suggests in the last thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a print magazine definitely helps, but I unfortunately can't find an About page (it appears to be a dead link). Looking over the previous thread makes me inclined to agree with . Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Extra Credits
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)
 * I'm not sure this is really the question we should be asking here. Criticism sections represent mostly opinion. In the case of opinion the most reliable source of all is the original source. So if you are looking to reference a claim that "XYZ thinks a game is outstanding" then you would almost always cite XYZ even if XYZ is your non-notable little brother's fan-zine. The real question that should be asked for opinion claims is whether the opinion comes from a notable source and whether the claim is WP:DUE. Opinion from RSes like those listed here would almost always be sufficiently notable and due to be used, but that doesn't mean that only RSes can ever be used for opinions. Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating the use of any old thing for the reception/criticism section. There should be a good reason to use the specific opinion used, but in my view notability is an important factor there.
 * Regarding the reliability of this source for factual matters, I'm on the fence. Personally I rather like the show, but a lot of it is opinion-heavy and I'm not finding a lot of info on editorial policies or author credentials. It seems that there was some degree of industry connection from the outset in the form of James Portnow, and they've been associated with Edge, Escapist, Penny Arcade, and Screw Attack in the past, but beyond these groups I see few citations to them. So if we just look at the source devoid of context then I'd be dubious of its usability as an RS, but since it has been used by several of our listed RSes in the 6 years since it was started, the question is whether they have gained sufficient reliability to be listed as an RS. I do see coverage from rockpapershotgun, bit-tech.net, polygon, gry-online, and several other listed RSes, which clearly shows they're notable. So again I remain on teh fence about its factual reliability. -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess my main question is not whether it's notable or not, but whether it would be counted as a "serious" source or as something like the Angry Video Game Nerd or Nostalgia Critic who aren't used even in opinion sections (and with good reason). SonOfPlisskin (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Serious? For sure. I'm not sure it could be used in the article context of anything other than Spec Ops: The Line as their sights tend to be on the industry as a collective rather than a single game. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Racketboy.com
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)


 * They've received recognition from sites like 1UP, Kotaku, and WIRED, so that's definitely a plus. However, their staff goes by pseudonyms and only the first names are given on the staff list. I don't see anywhere to submit your own articles, making it seem like the nine writers listed are the only ones, which is good since it's less likely that Randy in Boise could write something for the site, but their lack of given names makes it look unprofessional. The content seems to be primarily well-written editorials, so I'd say that it's Reliable, even with the lack of real names by the staff. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the staffers' full names are generally known. For example Racketboy is Nick Reichert, Fastbilly1 is Russell Wages, dsheinem is Dave Heineman , marurun is Brandon Walker, etc. The lack of journalistic and industry experience in the part of the staff is a little concerning, but I also tend to lean reliable based on the reputation of the site among our other RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have we proven that it's an RS? Or situational? Shall I add it?  Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be good to hear a few more voices... I wouldn't add it just yet, but if there's no further discussion then you could direct others to this discussion in its defense. -Thibbs (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the source is reliable by Supernerd recommendation.Not to mention what Thibbs said about their real names being known. But I might be a bit bias here as I read rocketboy all the time. NathanWubs (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's tenuously reliable—it's somewhat established and has been quoted in more reliable publications, but its pseudonymous approach and style don't entirely inspire me with confidence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamnesia
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)
 * Ok, here we go. I found a pocket of time. (Well a large pocket of time) To go over this source to see on a few points. so I will address this in a few bullet points. I am more than open to counter arguments about it.
 * General Reliability This is what I mostly have a direct problem with. They have some good stuff on their own like actual e3 stuff, and interviews where they themselves were present. But a lot of their stuff when looked at the sourcing of their articles. (A lot of it is second handed reporting I guess) Is that a lot of the sources that are used are not reliable themselves or not notable. A clear example of this is the frequent use of neogaf. Which makes them report rumors that later are not true. This would not be a problem, but the thing is just in how great of a number it happens by checking out their site. Of course when they use reliable sources themselves, or do their own stuff like sometimes actual interviews. Then of course they are reliable to use. They do have an editorial policy which is always a good thing, that actually looks pretty solid. But then again they do have some experience after all.
 * Noteable This is another problem that I have. After researching some more. I can find not a whole lot of mention of Gamnesia. The popularity that they do have is what I suspect coming from Zeldainformer. Which is their bigger brother that started in 2009. Which gained the popularity that they have/had from when they were doing massive reporting daily on Zelda Skyward Sword. On their own I do not see them as notable enough in the industry to be used on a regular basis and that other sources should be used before them. Form my own research I do not suspect them to become that noteable either.
 * ZeldaInformer As I looked into this of course I stumbled on the big brother of this site Zeldainformer. Which directly made me remember how they got populair, etc. The site is the same as Gamnesia with using unreliable or not well know sources themselves. The only difference for them is that they are actually more noteable. In such a way that  Zelda information I would actually maybe use them. After of course exhausting our more reliable sources first.
 * So the smaller version. At the moment for Gamnesia And Zeldainformer I would say: Situational . If their content is used it should be their own content, and that its better to use other more notable content first. NathanWubs (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Neogaf is used by a lot of sources, so I don't think that alone should hold it back. If you pay attention, it's rather crazy how much news breaks from there... Sergecross73   msg me  01:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How reliable is Neogaf, though? I'm not seeing it on the project page. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, Neogaf definitely doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. It's just a messageboard, so it definitely fails WP:USERG. But a lot of news breaks there. I've seen lots of RS's like IGN or Polygon cite them as the first place they found out about information. You just have to cite the RS that decided to research/write an article about it, not Neogaf. (News has to come from somewhere.) Sergecross73   msg me  17:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah Neogaf is certainly not RS. But Serge is right I was unaware of how much it was used until Serge mentioned it as a reply so I did some looking into it. Still would say the notability of Gamenesia is what stopping in using it. But their information is mostly correct and stuff. So if someone uses it if there are no other sources and the writing checks out, then why not? NathanWubs (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you! I'll go ahead and add it as Situational to the project page. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You mentioned Gamenesia's about page lacking in clarity, so maybe you could just email them and ask if they can update it with what you're looking for, if applicable? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so for this email to Gamnesia, I'm going to ask them to add some stuff to their About page: Recognition from major sources (IGN, 1UP, Nintendo Power, etc), and what kind of editorial oversight they have. I feel like there should be something else I should ask about, but I really can't think of what it might be right now. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another could be asking about the credentials of their writers - if they've ever written for other reliable sources or if they have any sort of education related writing or journalism. Sergecross73   msg me  00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

RS checklist
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) )
 * Not: WP:NOT WP:USERG
 * Listing the reputation and maybe affiliation of the authors
 * Discovering the personal identity of all of the staff authors (unveiling pseudonyms), with mention of tactics theretofore
 * List the presence of multiple editors
 * List their published policy of editorial oversight
 * List their published criteria by which new authors and submissions are accepted, and how they're publicly categorized as being new or ad hoc
 * Contact them to solicit the publishing of the above information, if it's not already available

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)
 * The problem that I see is the same as Thibbs, that certain editors, not only new ones. But especially ones that have a mission. Will try to use it to gaming the system. Like last year with the editor that wanted to add the sega source and a plethora of other sources that he thought were reliable. And when he hit a wall he asked, what can the sega source do to become reliable. With a checklist like this those kind of sources could give the impression of reliability while not following it. but a checklist might be handy especially for other user that would like to come more into the source checking business. NathanWubs (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that what you're saying is correct, and I was there shaking my head along with the fun and games you mention. lol.  I learned a lot of what I'm talking about now, through watching those silly discussions which you handled so diligently, eloquently, and patiently.  My only objective now is to complain that the criteria for the activity of evaluating and defining a new RS are currently unfairly arcane, where a highly skilled veteran editor may not have much competency at it because they don't even know the criteria or technique.  Real competency with this practice lies within the realm of you few bad dudes who are bad enough dudes to rescue the President.  To compare to the B class criteria, I know that could also be gamed somewhat, but there's probably less demand for that particular brand of wiki-shyster-ing; and they're still very broad and thorough, so a person would have to do a lot of work to even approach them.  But those B class criteria are an extremely indispensable guideline for those of us who are fully legit but who couldn't possibly remember all the details when we encounter the situation once in a while.  I'm saying that the WP:RS process is still thoroughly opaque to me now after some years, and I usually rely upon the generic RS criteria (print media source, or a web site spinoff thereof which is not WP:USERGEN) or I ape the more specific work of other people like yourselves.  I've seen you do it several times, and I can still barely remember the process and technique.  So I think a guideline or protocol or technique could be established in an essay, without providing an actual gamified checklist.  While thoroughly disclaiming any notion of it being an official checklist. Couldn't it? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well we already have WP:VG/RS as our guideline on the topic of RSes for game topics, although much of it is aimed at how to locate established RSes rather than how to find new ones. I assume you know about this already but this section contains links to RS custom searches that are up to date with the checklist and that allow queries across all of the current-consensus RSes. So that should be a viable option if you're interested in branching out away from physical magazines and their websites. I think part of the reason why we don't have a specific guide to determining RSes as well is that it could act as a fork of WP:RS which really is the central place explaining what it takes to determine an RS. In fact bulleted lists do exist there (e.g. at WP:NEWSORG and at WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and as VG/RS is subsidiary to RS, these checklists apply for VG topics as well. If we wanted a VG-specific RS checklist, a user essay would certainly be a viable option. I'd be happy to offer my advice if someone wanted to write one. -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the info, and I'll reread all this when I get more time. If this thread ends up being a protracted orientation for me and hopefully someone else, then okay. ;) Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK sounds good. You might also be interested in looking at the thread below (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources) where I tried to give a relatively thorough analysis of a single source as an example. Those aren't the only factors, but they are some of the more common ones we use here. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)