Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:05, 23 October 2014

• WT:VGRS

This talk page is for discussing the reliability of sources for use in video game articles. If you are wondering if a video game source is reliable enough to use on Misplaced Pages, this is the place to ask.

When posting a new topic, please add a link to the topic on the Video Game Sources Checklist after the entry for the site. If an entry for the site does not exist, create one for it and include the link to the topic afterward. Also, begin each topic by adding {{subst:find video game sources|...site name...|linksearch=...site URL...}} in order to provide other users with some easily accessible links to check up on the source.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WikiProject Video games
Main page talk
Archives Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177
Guidelines Manual of Style talk Article naming talk Sources talk Search engine Templates Wikidata Guide
Departments Assessment Reference library talk Newsletter talk Current issue Draft
Articles Article alerts Deletion discussions Essential articles New articles Popular pages Vital articles Recognized content Good content Featured content Requested articles
Task forces Esports talk Indie Nintendo talk Sega talk Video game characters talk Visual novels talk WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk List of active editors
Project watchlist view talk edit changes

Maximum

Find video game sources: "Maximum: The Video Game Magazine" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk

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)

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 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 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. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks! Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 13:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamesided

Find video game sources: "Gamesided" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

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 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)

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)

TechRaptor

Find video game sources: "TechRaptor" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

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)

Tech Crunch

Find video game sources: "Tech Crunch" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

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#Punisher sourcing czar ♔ 20:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Lost Levels

Find video game sources: "Lost Levels" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

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 Misplaced Pages. Perhaps then this will make more sense. Newcommers often confuse their own personal viewpoints of reliability with Misplaced Pages'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 ^. Misplaced Pages 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, Czar? 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. 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's editorial policy is different from Forbes's, 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. (edit conflict) 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)

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)

Impressive

Impressive list. Let me know if anyone has any questions about Polish-language websites. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| 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)

Rev3Games (again)

Find video game sources: "Rev3Games" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

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. CR4ZE (t • 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 previous discussion.

I would like to request a statement from this WikiProject for the Sources guideline regarding JimmyBlackwing's essay, section "Fake it". The practice described in that section is not about obtaining digital copies of a source, but something that would lead to:

Reception

Magazine said that game was great.

References

1. "Game". Magazine (42). 2014-10-23. The game is great. {{cite journal}}: ref stripmarker in |at= at position 11 (help); ref stripmarker in |issue= at position 3 (help); ref stripmarker in |quote= at position 19 (help); ref stripmarker in |title= at position 5 (help)

References of references

1. "Comment from user".
2. ^ "List of magazines".
3. "Fan forum for game".

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#Sources. WP:VG also relies on Misplaced Pages'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.

I've collapsed it above to avoid tl;dr syndrome. -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)