Misplaced Pages

Talk:Game Science: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:54, 26 August 2024 editSnakester95 (talk | contribs)149 edits →Unreliable sources are being used: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 22:09, 26 August 2024 edit undoCold Season (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,261 edits →Unreliable sources are being usedNext edit →
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 66: Line 66:
::::::::Overall, why cite pages that can't perform basic fact checking and instead have reporting based on rumors and extremists? I haven't edited a lot of Misplaced Pages pages but I can't understand how some of the citation choices can be this poor when they're almost guidelines for what makes an unreliable source. These are ] that are dangerous to cite. ::::::::Overall, why cite pages that can't perform basic fact checking and instead have reporting based on rumors and extremists? I haven't edited a lot of Misplaced Pages pages but I can't understand how some of the citation choices can be this poor when they're almost guidelines for what makes an unreliable source. These are ] that are dangerous to cite.
::::::::PS: I copied certain citations from the Wiki page so the retrieval dates are still representative of those. ] (]) 20:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC) ::::::::PS: I copied certain citations from the Wiki page so the retrieval dates are still representative of those. ] (]) 20:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

'''About the IGN article:''' The fact is that criticism on the IGN article has significant coverage. Your personal views on them is irrelevant. You, on the other hand, are attempting to scrub it away despite this.

'''About the SBI incident:''' Why are you going on about Sweet Baby Inc? It's not even included in this Wiki article, but I am willing to work on that for the Wiki article since you insist (I don't really have a desire to do so though)... Because even the Sweet Baby Inc incident, whether it is a rumor or not, can be included if it has significant coverage, which it has. Even if you pretend that these SBI allegations don't exists.

'''Finally''', HK01 isn't pushing anything in their reporting. They are providing coverage on something that is, in fact, going on. Is this not getting through in your Google Translate reading? Also, GamerSky is free to use author sobriquets; there's no Wiki policy that delegitimatize that; and your assumption derived from that is baseless. --] (]) 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:09, 26 August 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconChina Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCompanies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconVideo games Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...

Controversy or nonsense gossip?

This “controversy” is basically “someone said that someone said something bad”. It doesn't even mention exactly what that “sexism” would be.

Not to mention the credibility of the source, as well as its expertise (if the original gossip was made in a language the gossiper doesn't understand, let's say the chance of it being a lie is extremely high). Edefoam (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages. The people who run this site are far too woke to make that distinction. 159.146.110.247 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I mean, I have found articles about those comments dating back to 2020, IGN wasn't the first to report it, Just the first major western game outlet to post it, compared to the people who talk about how the dev's lines were mistranslated which was sourced from... a random small youtube channell
https://www.scmp.com/abacus/games/article/3098967/gamers-reconsider-anticipated-title-black-myth-wukong-following
https://thechinaproject.com/2020/09/02/chinese-game-developer-faces-boycott-after-ceos-sexually-explicit-remarks/ 99.233.117.80 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are being used

The Geeks + Gamers website is repeatedly being added to this wiki page despite showing many cases of being an unreliable source. As previously stated, the source has an obvious bias against journalists that hurts its credibility as a reliable source. Misplaced Pages establishes that when an article is biased it should have "editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

1. Editorial control: This can't be established because the website doesn't have a masthead showing their staff. We know nothing about their staff and hierarchy. As stated in the Reliable Sources guidelines, opinionated content is okay but the identity of the author helps determine reliability. Especially when they're a recognized expert. How can we establish expertise when there's only a name attributed to the article and nothing more?

2. A reputation for fact-checking: The current source for this article uses only rumors as their evidence to support a claim that also has no evidence. It pushes an unsubstantiated claim that journalists are working with a consultant company to extort Game Science for $7 million. Their source is a Twitter account that forges information against journalists. Instead of using just that source for their argument, they push it further by saying that journalists coordinate attacks with developers all the time to "woke-ify your game". Which they don't provide any facts to support.

The original article being used here as a source uses an Asmongold video as evidence to rival the IGN report about alleged mistranslations. The video uses ChatGPT, a forum post, and two Reddit posts as evidence. The translations have already been reported on by reliable sources that I included in this Misplaced Pages page but were removed. These were linked by another user in the Talk section.

The article then describes the as situation a "scum sundae" before claiming that an IGN translator wasn't paid. Their source is a tweet that shows pictures of tweets that are no longer available as evidence. Which clearly supports nothing as fact. The writer then further pushes the narrative that journalists are shaking down game developers. Continuing their bias from then on, they describe IGN as having "abhorrent behavior".

This entire article relies on questionable sources and rumors that show a lack of fact-checking. It borders on extremist content defaming journalists. Misplaced Pages states that it's "not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."

3. Level of independence: They repeatedly go after IGN from a biased point-of-view which destroys their independence on this topic. And again, not having a masthead or any policies to show their ethics tarnishes their independence. Their YouTube channel has a video labeled, "Game Journos HATE Black Myth Wukong" that starts with them saying, "Game journos are horrible people. They are a literal cancer. They want to destroy everything." They then go into a discriminatory rant, "Any time someone says as a woman or as a black man or as a black woman, fuck off, absolutely fuck off. The moment you say that, you are disqualified from having any legitimate opinion whatsoever to be taken seriously." Finishing their video with, "If some pronouns in bio, unattractive fat freak, that wants to go after this game ... if they hate it, if he she it we they, fat fuck hates it, then I am going to support it."

I don't know how they can be independent from covering Black Myth Wukong or journalists with a perspective like that.

Regarding HK01, I had to use Google Translate to understand their article. I removed their source because they also use Asmongold's video to push a claim that IGN's report has mistranslations and is "maliciously translated". Despite other media outlets reporting the same information three years earlier. Aside from this, HK01 also sources a random person on Weibo to push a claim that an IGN editor is a member of a consulting firm. While also suggesting that said consulting firm uses the media and others to attack developers and create negative reports. This is another case of reporting without facts that even the HK01 reporter acknowledges. They state that there's no substantial evidence to support these arguments.

Continuing from there, their article claims IGN and a consultant firm asked Game Science for $7 million in consulting fees. This is still only based on a Weibo post that they state is speculation.

All that aside, I also included two other sources regarding Game Science refusing to address IGN's report. These sources were removed.

  1. @airbagged (August 21, 2024). "No, what we're not gonna do is have this guy post a doctored screenshot claiming that Rebekah Valentine said this. He needs to delete this now. I went onto Resetera to check her comments and she NEVER made that comment. You're outright lying" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  2. Gherzo, Alex (14 June 2024). "Games Journalists Target Black Myth: Wukong". Geeks + Gamers. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  3. ^ Feng, Jenny (2 September 2020). "Chinese game developer faces boycott after CEO's sexually explicit remarks". The China Project. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  4. ^ Chen, Qin (27 August 2020). "Gamers reconsider anticipated title Black Myth: Wukong following sexually explicit comments from Game Science CEO". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  5. Games Journos HATE Black Myth Wukong on YouTube
  6. Fenlon, Wes (20 August 2024). "We asked Black Myth: Wukong's developer about the controversy over its founders' past sexist remarks, but GameScience's only reply was 'No comment'". PC Gamer. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  7. Valentine, Rebekah (17 June 2024). "About Our Report From Last Year". IGN. Retrieved 20 August 2024.

Snakester95 (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Ya, it honestly looks like they are going to keep editing it and adding back the misinformation and unreliable sources unless they are blocked out from editing it and the page is locked 2607:FEA8:6563:2400:75CB:FEC4:EE0D:A239 (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I posted this due to another editor accusing me of edit warring. They've since added both sources I discussed above back into the Wiki page without providing a reason they're reliable. This is also after one editor reverted a vandalism edit back to my edit. Several other cases of vandalism from other users that other editors have also reverted back to my edit. One user vandalizing a section I edited was also IP-blocked. And then another editor added the PC Gamer source I used after that was also removed by the IP-blocked user. I also provided edit summaries for each of my four edits across the last three days. Snakester95 (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Now if we can just get remove what is being sourced from the low quality sources that are still on the page 2607:FEA8:6563:2400:75CB:FEC4:EE0D:A239 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
First off, HK01 is a mainstream media source based in Hong Kong.
Secondly, they are providing a balanced coverage of the discourse in the West and providing a commentary on it (not using it as evidence to push anything; they themselves are literally Chinese). The ironic thing is that they also highlight how the IGN article has their third-party sources behind pseudonyms. You, on the other hand, are trying to scrub citations that covers the criticisms on the IGN article.
Since you have expressed that you are using Google Translate to try to understand the HK01 article, there's a quote in the reference that contains the main content, i.e., the questioning of the IGN article's legitimacy (though the article goes more in depth). --Cold Season (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
A source that straight out uses social media posts, YouTube videos and even the article itself Has stated are not in any way verified, and you other source(geeks +Gamer) uses the same source and is incredibly biased
Both also ignore that like you…. There is a news article over 3 years older then the IGN one, written by a bilingual speaker of both English and mandarin reporting on the same allegations with the job postings in question and what the man said…. 2607:FEA8:6563:2400:9B9:A478:89BD:AFB2 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
First point: Yeah, HK01 is providing coverage on Western discourse and then adds their own commentary... That means being balanced and examining everything. HK01 has met that. IGN has not addressed the mistranslation allegations, ironically, which is rather unbalanced. Actually, now that I think of it, that fact seems suitable content for this too.
Second point: Your argument opposes Misplaced Pages policy WP:NPOV. Just because another commentary is older... is not a rationale to try to remove all citations that goes against it. It is policy to provide all significant views published by reliable sources. --Cold Season (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
HK01 and Geeks + Gamers are relying on Asmongold's video that uses ChatGPT against an IGN writer who translated the article themselves. IGN is a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages. I would trust IGN's reporters which have their own editorial standards over a two minute video relying on ChatGPT. https://corp.ign.com/standards-and-practices
I didn't deny that HK01 is a mainstream media source. They're also a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages. However, their article doesn't do any reporting. They rely on Asmongold and Weibo posts. Regardless of commentary, they didn't contact Game Science, Sweet Baby Inc, IGN, or any of the companies or people they're reporting on. They instead rely on Weibo rumors that push a defamatory narrative. If you're going to argue HK01 should be a source, they should have an in-text attribution to the reporter specifically. This is how commentary is treated according to the reliable sources page due to it being a statement of opinon. While also stating that commentary is rarely reliable for statements of fact. Regarding what you said about them not pushing claims, they're pushing many claims and show their bias in the sources they use. They're not providing balanced coverage by including Grummz, Asmongold, and only Weibo posts pushing rumors with no proof. Where are their sources from other perspectives or Weibo posts like the other Chinese sources I've used? Their sources are all one-sided.
Regarding your second point, the older articles provide additional context and information, also from a Chinese perspective, that have been removed. As you said, "it is policy to provide all significant views published by reliable sources." So why should only HK01 exist and not those views? Those sources also support the facts of the IGN report which rival the claim of alleged mistranslations. I included a report from South China Morning Post that was removed, despite them being used in the same Misplaced Pages page to praise Black Myth: Wukong. They're either reliable or they aren't. Which Misplaced Pages also confirms them as a reliable source. The current situation shows the opposite of providing all significant views and providing a neutral point of view.
Regarding the pseudonyms, it's not unheard of to use anonymous sources in journalism. It's an important way to provide information while reducing harm to the source. Breaking that confidentiality can lead to legal issues as well. https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp
All that aside, you haven't addressed Geeks + Gamers being used as a reliable source which they clearly aren't. Snakester95 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Why are there citations that source an extremist YouTuber as the foundation of their reporting? SmashJT has a list of journalists to harass. Gamersky and HK01 use them as a source. And Gamersky doesn't attach a named writer to their article either. The byline is listed as "cold1sleep" and edited by the same user. Which shows there's no editorial control.
HK01 is a step above Gamersky, but as I've previously said, their reporting on this topic is minimal at best. In more than one article cited on this Wiki page, HK01 claims Sweet Baby Inc and IGN tried to extort Game Science for $7 million. The source of this is a Weibo post with no evidence for the claim. Which is further blurred by HK01 using a Reddit post that only translates a portion of the Weibo post. Users in the same Reddit thread are also questioning the legitimacy of this claim. A right-wing content creator outright called the claim false too. This alone shows a lack of fact checking.
Why hasn't HK01 handled the alleged IGN mistranslations themselves instead of relying on a YouTuber using ChatGPT? Why is HK01's criticism of IGN using an anonymous source significant? If the claim is that an anonymous source can't be verified, you can say that about every anonymous source in existence. This is why journalists have standards, ethics, policies, etc. Which is why Misplaced Pages lists IGN as a reliable source and expert. Anonymous sources aren't necessarily unknown sources, they're just not publicly disclosed.
Overall, why cite pages that can't perform basic fact checking and instead have reporting based on rumors and extremists? I haven't edited a lot of Misplaced Pages pages but I can't understand how some of the citation choices can be this poor when they're almost guidelines for what makes an unreliable source. These are questionable sources that are dangerous to cite.
PS: I copied certain citations from the Wiki page so the retrieval dates are still representative of those. Snakester95 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "抹黑《黑神话》的IGN撰稿人急了！呼吁玩家去玩盗版". GamerSky. 25 August 2024.
  2. ^ "黑神話:悟空｜IGN作者呼籲網民玩翻版｜疑不滿遊戲性別歧視仍大賣｜科技玩物". 香港01 (in Chinese). 26 August 2024.
  3. @longislandviper (June 21, 2024). "No, Sweet Baby Inc. didn't 'extort' Game Science for $7 million to work on Black Myth: Wukong. How do I know? Because even $200 million games don't spend that on consultants. It's an absurd claim. ::::::::I knew the story was fake the second I saw it. Stop believing everything you read" (Tweet) – via Twitter. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 197 (help)
  4. 林卓恆 (17 June 2024). "傳黑神話悟空遭政確團體逼害小島秀夫都中槍｜因拒交5500萬顧問費". HK01 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 23 August 2024. 不過這篇文章的真實性也存疑；在網上早就有人指出該文中引用的性別歧視例子，基本上都是將遊戲科學成員在社交媒體上的發文斷章取義，以至惡意翻譯而成。而文章中引用了不止一位「來自中國的女性遊戲開發者」的批評遊戲科學的發言，均全都以化名（pseudonym）記載，完全無法查證真偽。

About the IGN article: The fact is that criticism on the IGN article has significant coverage. Your personal views on them is irrelevant. You, on the other hand, are attempting to scrub it away despite this.

About the SBI incident: Why are you going on about Sweet Baby Inc? It's not even included in this Wiki article, but I am willing to work on that for the Wiki article since you insist (I don't really have a desire to do so though)... Because even the Sweet Baby Inc incident, whether it is a rumor or not, can be included if it has significant coverage, which it has. Even if you pretend that these SBI allegations don't exists.

Finally, HK01 isn't pushing anything in their reporting. They are providing coverage on something that is, in fact, going on. Is this not getting through in your Google Translate reading? Also, GamerSky is free to use author sobriquets; there's no Wiki policy that delegitimatize that; and your assumption derived from that is baseless. --Cold Season (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: