Shortcut

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 Wikipedia, 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.

Click here to start a new discussion thread


GMR Magazine[edit]

Find video game sources: "GMR" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · URL... LinkTo

GMR is a Ziff Davis US magazine that provided computer and console game reviews from 2003 to 2005. The magazine had an editorial board and the magazines were closely linked to online content on the 1Up Network website, a reliable source under WP:VG/S. Given the publisher, plenty of the contributors turn up in other reliable sources, such as Greg Orlando, Che Chou and Ryan Scott. The only thing that is unusual is that the magazines were sold in Electronics Boutique. But it's a Ziff Davis publication and the review scores suggest this had no more of an impact on editorial independence than compared to other magazine reviews. You can find all the issues on the Internet Archive.

Aftermath again[edit]

Revisiting this discussion (previous 1 previous 2). I've been consistently impressed with the caliber of writing here, both in editorial (e.g. [1] [2])and in reported journalism work (e.g. [3], [4]). I especially like that there are some sickos on staff that cover older/retro topics in great detail (e.g. [5], [6]). We've already talked about the contributors' (owners) pedigree, so I'm comfortable going with reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with calling them reliable. Compared to more mainstream sites, I feel more comfortable with their work than, say, IGN, which has its fair share of churnalism and listicles. When sites are lowering standards of quality, it's important to keep around a site that's embracing quality reporting and content. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel they're reliable per past discussions and their quality of work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situational (changing to Unreliable due to concerns over WP:SELFPUB given ownership situation) - Probably repeating myself, given the writers involved are former recent Kotaku (which has had a very choppy history when it comes to editorial standards) and looking at Aftermath's output so far it still feels very much in that Kotaku vein of being more personality-driven than the journalistic merits itself. Therefore while I wouldn't label the site as "unreliable" across the board I wouldn't feel comfortable giving it a similar "reliable" one either.
Comment - IIRC a concern someone had previously was there wasn't a public policy on editorial standards, has this been resolved? Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was Cukie and she contacted them directly to clarify. They have industry standard editorial protocols. Are there particular incidents of journalistic 'malpractice' you can point to for the writers involved? AFAIK all of them left Kotaku before the AI article stuff. As for the personality-driven vs journalistic merit stuff, I think their reported work is of high quality and the personality-driven stuff falls under WP:RSOPINION. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any of them were there at the exact time of the AI stuff, but pretty much all of them were there for most of the G/O Media era that's most come under scrutiny in terms of just general output being unreliable/situational. And going by RSOPINION, given the type of outlet this is, still feels like it'd result in a situational designation. I think maybe it's best to start with situational and then down the line once they've had time to become established it's reviewed given it's only March. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "malpractice" or rather general behaviour, I'd say that's covered in general by discussions about Kotaku, though Luke Plunkett's recent history comes to mind, such as last year where they responded to Nintendo blacklisting by posting "kill markings" with the Imperial Japanese Flag. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't know that I would agree at all with the sentiment of them being attached to the worst of Kotaku's era. They weren't brought in with G/O, they left because of G/O, so it can't be tied to them. Secondly, having bad takes isn't alien for people tied to reliable sources. I feel that, if a bad action by an editor at IGN wouldn't impugn IGN as a source, that shouldn't be used to argue against the reliability of a new source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't brought in with G/O, they left because of G/O, so it can't be tied to them.
If people raised issues with the journalistic quality of the outlet during the G/O Media era which they worked at for some years then that is tied to them as well (if not all to do with them), given they're the writers of said output people questioned. And I don't think your allegory about IGN really works in the way you think it does. Here the issue is that if an employee at an outlet (with a somewhat dodgy reputation) leaves and starts their own one as a part-owner can we really just decide very soon after it's established that they're reliable now?
tl;dr, basically I think this is a case of too soon and that at best we should consider it situational given their previous recent ties to other outlets of questionable reliability and then revisit the issue in another six months given this is the third discussion on the site in as many months. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cukie. You're reversing effect and cause. G/O management caused the issues through unreasonable article quotas and SEO policies; this is well documented. Frankly, it's tantamount to career sabotage. Also I feel like you're painting Kotaku in too broad a brush. Their journalism bonafides have always been high, even during their supposed questionable eras. Many of the best shoeleather reporters in the industry got their start or big break at Kotaku including Totilo, Schreier, and D'Anastasio. As our own advice notes, News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable. The situational element only comes in for tossed off geeky/bloggy/joke-y posts and for possible AI-generated articles since 2023.
And I hope it doesn't have to be said but disliking a person or disagreeing with a person's opinions does not make them a bad journalist. Bad people can still be highly skilled journalists (not that I'm suggesting Aftermath staff are bad people), and reliability of a source depends fully on the latter and not at all on the former. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find these arguments extremely uncompelling. In what way would the lowering of quality be all on them? For that to be true, you would need to demonstrate that the lowering of quality happened prior to its purchase by G/O, and that doesn't seem to be something people agree with. A comparably strange argument would be to say that, if Kotaku went down for a month, that reflects poorly on the writers rather than the server host. That you argued this may be "all" to do with them is something so utterly confusing that I don't even remotely understand how you can argue that point with a straight face.
As far as the reputation of an individual author among a group, as Axem notes, that's honestly a completely tangential argument to make. The moral character of a journalist does not inherently impact their ability to do journalism. I do not believe that Wikipedians would argue that some writer for NY Times is unreliable if they committed a serious crime that's not related to the things they write about, so why is a stupid and awful take relevant to Luke Plunkett's ability to do journalism? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium "News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable. The situational element only comes in for tossed off geeky/bloggy/joke-y posts.", but that's the point. From what I've seen of Aftermath so far it's that exact same mix of everything so I really don't see why that same situationality suddenly doesn't apply.
Many of the best shoeleather reporters in the industry got their start or big break at Kotaku including Totilo, Schreier, and D'Anastasio. All of whom stayed as reporters at outlets, and didn't become effectively self-published.
And I hope it doesn't have to be said but disliking a person or disagreeing with a person's opinions does not make them a bad journalist. Bad people can still be highly skilled journalists (not that I'm suggesting Aftermath staff are bad people), and reliability of a source depends fully on the latter and not at all on the former.
It's somewhat different though when they go from "they were a journalist under someone else's payroll" to being an owner of the business, in which case their behaviour does reflect on it because it effectively becomes a form of self-publishing (which is a whole other minefield).
Many of the best shoeleather reporters in the industry got their start or big break at Kotaku including Totilo, Schreier, and D'Anastasio.
But as how one bad reporter doesn't make everyone bad, some being exceptional doesn't make all exceptional. Also all those names listed (until December) after Kotaku stayed as reporters and joined outlets of repute, they didn't start a self-published operation.
--------
@Cukie Gherkin I think you've gotten the wrong end of the stick, by "(if not all to do with them)" I mean as in it's not entirely to do with them, but likewise you can't entirely blame bad management when unless there's evidence otherwise the editorial decision-making in regards to coverage and output was still independent of ownership. If there were questions on the quality of what writers were putting out then that is partially on the staff involved.
The moral character of a journalist does not inherently impact their ability to do journalism. I do not believe that Wikipedians would argue that some writer for NY Times is unreliable if they committed a serious crime that's not related to the things they write about, so why is a stupid and awful take relevant to Luke Plunkett's ability to do journalism?
As said above, it changes because Luke Plunkett is a part-owner of the site. He isn't simply some staff writer at a major publication that can be held to account by an editorial board. He is effectively self-publishing. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just talking out of both sides of your mouth, making the argument from every angle to see what sticks. They were being paid by G/O media to put out shitty unreliable work, which makes them unreliable, but now they're not being paid so now they're unreliable. What?? Self-publishing is more relevant in the fringe/conspiracy theory world. Was the New York Times "self-published" when it first started out? The editorial board of Aftermath is the other owners who edit and fact check each others' work. This is a reputation-based business and I've yet to see an tangible example of journalistic malpractice that might impact reputation. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were being paid by G/O media to put out shitty unreliable work, which makes them unreliable, but now they're not being paid so now they're unreliable. What??
Didn't say that. Did say that they previously worked at outlets which had a questionable reputation for its output and they are now self-publishing which means they're in control of their own output without any editorial oversight. They are separate causes for concern.
Self-publishing is more relevant in the fringe/conspiracy theory world.
No it's not, the policy clearly applies to any publication, with the only consideration of potential reliability being Subject-Matter Experts. And I seriously doubt that applies to games journalists/bloggers.
Was the New York Times "self-published" when it first started out?
That's quite literally a mainstay of my argument. NYT is considered reliable because it's got a body of journalistic merit and standards going back nearly two centuries. Big difference to a self-published blog/site that started a few months ago.
The editorial board of Aftermath is the other owners who edit and fact check each others' work.
Well not only can I not find that anywhere on their site, or anything to demonstrate in writing how their site operates in terms of editorial standards, but that still means it's self-published and covered under the self-published policy ("personal or group blogs") Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean this as a comment on Cukie's personal character/trustworthiness, but I do raise an eyebrow at a source not stating their editorial policy and us relying on an editor's personal correspondence of it instead.` Hackerman67 (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cukie did contact them (and I thank Cukie for being proactive), but unless there's something I missed, industry standard protocols were not confirmed.
The response was "Yep! Every piece we run is edited. Riley mostly handles that, but we're a pretty small team, so for some pieces another one of us will do it".
While at best that means they have an unstated editorial policy and meet industry standards, at worst it means they have someone edit it for spelling and grammar. The source text doesn't confirm either way. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing, when we are examining a dip in quality, we can point to a timeline. It happened when G/O purchased Kotaku. If the quality of the writers was partly the issue, why was it only recognized after G/O bought them? Why is it that Kotaku getting even worse happened when the staff from before G/O largely left? We can't prove G/O is responsible, but if it's not G/O that's to blame, it leaves many unanswered questions why the staff was better before them, and why the site worsened after the staff left. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's really not the case at all is it. Let's actually look at the current listing of Kotaku for a minute, which says this:
News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance (such as [13]). Articles published before 2010 had comparatively weaker editorial standards, while articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content. It should be noted that this is not a definitive cut-off—editorial deterioration is gradual, and editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years—so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
So breaking that down for a moment:
1 - News reporting at G/O Media era was considered reliable for three years, so the idea it simply "happened when G/O purchased Kotaku" isn't true.
2 - The article used to emphasis the unreliability of certain styles of posting quite literally uses Luke Plunkett from 2012 as an example. So clearly he's been viewed by editors here as a problem for at least a decade.
3 - It specifically points out that the "editorial deterioration is gradual", presumably because looking back at previous discussions no one could actually agree when the site "got bad". Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But no one is arguing that Kotaku has never had issues, the point is that the period before they were bought was seen as good enough to upgrade them, and then G/O represented a gradual decline rather than an immediate one, with the staff leaving almost immediately seeing a sharp drop in quality. Also, again, Luke's bad takes don't matter for this unless they can be shown to affect his journalism. I do not think that Luke Plunkett made a geeky blog because he has a bad take, for instance. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of his "bad takes" is literally still used to highlight concerns about Kotaku's reliability years prior to G/O Media existing. You can't discount that when talking about the reliability of a site he's part owner of and self-publishing under. And again, read the actual description, it doesn't state when the "gradual decline" began, only that its decline happened at some point prior to 2023 (because as shown in prior linked discussions about Aftermath, the issue about them being former Kotaku writers and therefore how to discuss reliability was brought up). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We actually can look at the discussions to identify when the decline seemed to happen. In this discussion, a number of Kotaku's editors left the site due to 2019 Deadspin layoffs. The fact that it took two years for such a discussion to happen suggests to me that the notion that G/O's management wasn't to blame a strange one, considering the staff during the period most people agree was Kotaku's most reliable saw a significant migration from the site explicitly because of what G/O did to Deadspin. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even in that discussion though, the first reply debunks it:
"Also for further context, Totilo only left back in February 2021, well after the Deadspin controversy in late 2019, with Patricia Hernandez officially taking over in late June 2021. So Kotaku had an interim EiC (Riley Macleod) in between Totilo's departure and Hernandez's return, who also left just before she was announced as EiC" (source for evidence)
So they didn't leave because of Deadspin in 2019, instead they stuck around for multiple years after. It's even notable that all but one of the Aftermath Founders was there at the point Totilo left in 2021, so if you're considering that G/O Media's purchase marks the degrading of their reliability, well then these founders were putting out that poor content for some years (Luke Plunkett was the last to leave in July 2023).
Just from my own anecdotal experience, as someone who's read Kotaku (at differing levels) since probably around 2009, I've seen people decry that site as "not what it once was" even before a certain lawsuit took place. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hackerman67 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what's giving you question? No offense, but as of writing this, you're about 80 edits into your editing career. I know that 80 edits into my time on Wikipedia, I had no idea how Wikipedia assessed sources yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to reply for Hackerman67, but as it's been a couple days, I imagine it refers to their statement:
"I do raise an eyebrow at a source not stating their editorial policy and us relying on an editor's personal correspondence of it instead" DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situational (Edit: Now leaning unreliable considering the lack of Conflict of Interest notice on their recent posts about the game journalist industry and that most of their recent posts big posts involved it or were Kotaku style posts like 'I’ve Had The Same PC Speakers For 20 Years, Almost My Entire Adult Life') / Wait and See - at least six months before bringing it up again
- It's still quite new, there's no posted editorial policy (and I don't believe the minimal response to Cutie's email was satisfactory in place of that), and while the staff do seem accomplished and the work I've seen seems good at face value, the majority of them were still working at Kotaku during their weaker years (most left during 2020 - 2021 and people were questioning it long before the AI stuff). It has also been mentioned that the co-owner was one of the earliest posted examples of weaker articles.
I'm also a little wary because of articles like this one about Gamurs and the state of the industry, which are very interesting (and in this case was published by the co-owner) but are very likely subject to bias. Bias of course is expected, but including things like an anonymous Indeed review of the company as an example and the potential to misrepresent the situation and present it as fact are concerns.
Edit: I'd also note articles like this one make me wary of their ethics. It's reporting negatively about Kotaku, without adding a disclaimer mentioning their previous association with and decision to leave it (and most likely association with friends/colleagues working there), unlike for example slate's previous article on Kotaku which clearly states what they describe as a conflict of interest (Follow up Edit: For context, the article when originally posted as shown via WayBack Machine didn't include any mention of their CoI. It was later edited to mention Riley's involvement, but no-one else's at the site including the co-author Gita who also worked there). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIASED covers this. All sources are biased and sources are not required to follow NPOV. The deciding factor for reliability is the reputation and caliber of work, not lack of bias. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does which is why I said it's expected. It's the concerns over the reputation/caliber that are higher when it comes to these sort of things, which is why I highlighted using an anonymous Indeed review as an example to build a narrative, which seems even worse than using an embedded tweet. something that sources are often called out for.
Edit: To clarify, my concern is that this is a piece of work where there is a clear bias and this is where less than reliable reporting is most likely to show through potentially not adhering to journalist processes in favor of making their point - not that the bias itself is an issue. But if they present information where sources such as an anonymous review posted online is supporting evidence to drive a point that they're clearly in favor of presenting, then can we trust their anonymous sources are all vetted? That they've interviewed a wide selection of people and not just their friends in the industry who they know are unhappy? Cascading on from that, is their process for other articles up to spec?
At this point, we've not seen much evidence of how this outlet operates (not helped by it's lack of editorial policy). As a new outlet, it doesn't *have* much of a a reputation, much less one for reliability.
DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that journalists can't report on other journalists? If not them, then who is allowed to report on problems in journalism?
If you're concerned about the use of anonymous sources in general, check source (journalism) for more information about why we as a society allow professional journalists to report news based on undisclosed sources, and by extension, why news outlets that use undisclosed sources are still considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. It's part of the social contract that we agree to when we empower journalists to investigate. Without protection of anonymous sources, there would be no such thing as whistleblowing. If you assume little enough faith, no journalist is reliable because there's a chance they could be making anything up at any time. But that's not a workable state of affairs. Instead, we trust news organizations to responsibly report the news, based on anonymous sources when applicable, and that trust is given according to their reputation for good work.
For this anonymous "source" in particular, it's just a publicly posted review on Indeed that anyone can go look at and verify. They didn't track down who posted the review and it's actually not referred to in the text of the article; it's just flavor. It's a completely different thing from protecting an anonymous source in the journalistic sense and the presence of the quote in that article doesn't reflect on the website's integrity about using anonymous sources in general. They're not related.
And while the website might not have much of a reputation yet, the people certainly do. All/most of their posts are still up at other sites. You can look at them yourself to decide if they meet your standards for reliable journalism. They certainly meet mine. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was this decided to be a reliable source?
I already see pages on wikipedia using them.
Due to the reason why they left kotaku and writing articles heavily leaning that way (political reasons) i dont see them as reliable if wikipedia wants to be unbiased. 2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:98B2:47E1:1A1E:E432 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide reliability because we agree or disagree with perceived "political reasons" (especially if it's a video game website.)
I can't officially close the discussion and deride a consensus here because I'm a participant in the discussion, but if you ask me, it looks like we're kinda stuck between "reliable" and "inconclusive". Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem there's no clear consensus here. While it's not always about not merely about counting heads, I count 8 reliable, 1 situational, 3 unreliable, and 2 wait and see. Some of these don't have arguments for their opinions at all though.
If it's not resolved this time (as the third discussion on a relatively new site), perhaps one down the line will after those wait and sees have had more time. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CG Magazine[edit]

Find video game sources: "CG Magazine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

So this was declared unreliable back in 2014 [12], but in a discussion that, in my eyes, didn't stand a WP:SNOW of a chance due to being heavily promoted by an editor affiliated with the site. I'd like to give this a second run, as I think it's a reasonable source.

Ruliweb[edit]

Find video game sources: "Ruliweb" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Ruliweb is a South Korea-based website with a video gaming focus formed in 2000. The website has had official sponsorship with domestic video game companies for events, notably Rulicon livestreaming in 2022 with publishers like Sony, Bandai Namco and Blizzard.

Most of the posts on the frontpage are user-submitted contents, which are useless by WP:UGC. All following links are named "information board" or something similar, but are run like internet forums with no moderation process to filter its contents prior: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

There are some articles in Ruliweb written by official staff, but they have their own issues. The About Us page only discloses the fact that its current publisher is Park Byeong Uk (박병욱) and editor-in-chief is Lee Jang Won (이장원). Park is the founder of the website with no connection to journalism otherwise (if this interview with Donga is to be trusted). Lee's Linkedin page states he was in Entershot and Gameshot previously, but neither are particularly known for high standard journalism. About Us has no information on the website's editorial process.

Ruliweb's articles do not have info pages for individual journalists, making it difficult to tell who they are or how long they've worked there, and are generally poor at authorship practices. Take this review of Unicorn Overlord published in March 2024 for example. Confusingly, this post's author is credited as "(RULIWEB`Д')/" on its profile. The author's name comes up in the video game infobox, but only as their nickname "Graz'zy". It isn't until when you scroll all down (but before scrolling past user comments) that you can finally see the author is Kim Yeong Hun (김영훈). This is one of the better ones. The review of Dragon's Dogma 2 only credits the author as "Mustang" and does not disclose who the person actually is.

Despite the website's connections to gaming industry, its general reliance on user-generated contents and dubious transparency of articles suggest its interest lies in sponsored contents, which would also disqualify it by WP:SPONSORED. I suggest this website be flagged unreliable. There aren't a lot of Wikipedia articles citing Ruliweb but I thought it was necessary to bring it up because, due to being a non-English source, it might be hard to realize the website is not trustworthy.--Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it be used, but generally agree with your assessments here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel we lack, currently, any good Korean sources (correct me if I'm wrong here). So if we can ascertain it's an actual article published by the staff and not user-generated content, it should be situational...albeit sparingly. Case in point I've noticed they've done interviews on Genshin Impact material, and I cited them prior where they did an interview with Shift Up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Park Place[edit]

Find video game sources: "That Park Place" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Seeing this pop up in my google news sources as of late, and honestly nothing about this site looks reliable. Their editor in chief is Bounding Into Comics' former editor in chief to boot, which also raises some red flags for me given that site's history. Seems open and shut, but bringing it up for discussion to be safe. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable per above reasoning. Clearly more interested in culture war flamebait than accurate reporting. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems obvious to call this unreliable. Just adding my name here for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Wind[edit]

Find video game sources: "Second Wind" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I haven't seen anyone open a discussion on Second Wind yet, so here's some general thoughts/notes:

Independent outlet made up of former Escapist employees. They primarily cover gaming, film, and television mostly doing reviews and opinion pieces. They post videos on YouTube, and written columns on Patreon. Most of the written columns are paywalled which is annoying for us editors, but of course doesn't disqualify them per WP:PAYWALL. They are unfortunately lacking a proper "about us" page, they just have this short blurb. EIC Nick Calandra seems to be pretty responsive to people on Twitter so you could probably get in touch with him if you want more details on their editorial policies.

They have 10ish fulltime employees. Some key people are: Editor-in-Chief is Nick Calandra who was Escapist EIC from 2019-2023. He has a bachelor’s degree in Multimedia Journalism and worked at a few different smaller outlets prior to The Escapist. Darren Mooney appears to be a notable film critic and published author. Marty Sliva formerly worked at 1UP and IGN, both of which are reliable gaming sources. And of course Yahtzee Croshaw is still around; previous discussions of the Escapist have indicated that his reviews are fine to use.

One thing to note is The Escapist is listed as a situational source but has gone through multiple eras of management/ownership. The last discussion on The Escapist was in 2017 while Calandra and his team (who would go on to become Second Wind) started in 2019. So other than Yahtzee who was there the whole time, past evaluations of The Escapist aren't really applicable to the current Second Wind team.

Personally, I think they seem fine. I've been following their content and haven't noticed anything objectionable. CurlyWi (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I personally enjoy their content but in terms of Wikipedia policy it feels like an immediate fail under their content being predominantly Youtube-based and their "outlet" being self-published. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Counter-Strike[edit]

With Counter-Strike being one of the leading eSports games, I find it surprisingly difficult to get reliable sources that are in WP:VGRS. And that is for the best players in the world, the Counter-Strike Major trophy holders. Imagine struggling to find links for Cristiano Ronaldo that match WP:VGRS.

There have been various discussions that HLTV won't be included in this list. While it's a pity considering that is the main reporting source for Counter-Strike scores, it's understandable. Can we add at least some sites that are actually used for Counter-Strike news reporting? I suppose the same situation is with Valorant and VLR.gg but that's a different topic.

A few that could be added: 1. https://www.esports.net/ 2. https://www.oneesports.gg/ 3. https://press.pglesports.com/

Overall, I just want to raise the obvious issue that the sites currently in WP:VGRS are not covering the top game esports news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latviawikiman (talk • contribs) 05:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at One Esports while source searching for Genshin Impact-related articles. From what I've looked at it seems fine, it's owned by the same group that owns ONE Championship. No opinion on the other two, but ONE has a defined editorial team and seems to publish decent enough content to where I could consider it to be reliable. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at the other two.
- Esports.net I'm not sure on. They have a clear editorial team that seems to be experienced, but they also have a contributions tab where anyone can correct them on issues. This seems to primarily be in the event of grammatical errors, but the extent that this can go appears uncertain. Requesting input from another editor or two on this one, because I'm on the fence.
- PGL is a no. I can't find any editorial team or about page, which basically makes this an immediate fail to me. Unreliable. λ NegativeMP1 03:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sportacentrs.com (non-English source)[edit]

Find video game sources: "Sporta Centrs" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

SportaCentrs.com (LV Wikipedia) is a Latvian (non-English) media that publishes information about sports and also eSports.

The site was launched in 2002 and they have a professional team of journalists about sports and esports: https://parmums.sportacentrs.com/redakcija.html

Adventure Game Hotspot[edit]

Hey. Can anyone add this new site since 2022 to the main page? It's similar to Adventure Gamers. One co founder was former editor at Adventure Gamers..They also have a small policies page. Check it.

https://adventuregamehotspot.com/about

Also, can someone amend notes for wargamer dot com slightly to indicate it's more focused on tabletop matters since former site's design's closure in early 2021 or so? Before it used to show lots more digital/PC wargaming news. These are almost supplanted by PCGamesN (which is under same network company, Network N).

ObiKKa (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this small Advertising info page, I also noticed that the current GameWatcher website used to be Strategy Informer.
https://www.gamewatcher.com/pages/advertising
I see that the old Strategy Informer (name closed down last decade or few years ago, I think) is under the situational sources list on main page.
GameWatcher needs to be added to the page, perhaps next to Strategy Informer. Content seems medium good. One writer overwhelmingly writes articles there. Multi people do write reviews. It's focused on PC gaming.
No editorial process page I could find, just a simple staff roster page (though, many other writers are not mentioned there).
Scrolling down homepage is rather difficult (similar to PCGamesN & wargamer dot com) as older articles keep popping up. There's no additional info links at bottom row of website like usual in most other news sites. Just a menu at top corner or row.
ObiKKa (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modojo[edit]

Find video game sources: "Modojo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Haven't seen this source discussed yet, so I might as well bring it here. They're a website that covers mobile games (and occasionally review them too). They're listed on Metacritic. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 23:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula The domain seems to be inoperable. It appears that they operate under Shacknews now, which is already reliable, as of 2017 (https://www.shacknews.com/article/101818/modojo--shacknews-new-phone-who-dis) -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh, thanks! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 23:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth of Geeks[edit]

Find video game sources: "...site name..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · URL... LinkTo

I found this "best games" list by Wealth of Geeks https://wealthofgeeks.com/essential-video-games-everyone-needs-to-play/ I would like the source evaluated for future discussion. Alena 33 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable WP:USEBYOTHERS. If anything, I wonder if they're buying links from some of the stuff I did find where high authority sites are linking to them by just their categories and not referring to them for information. Like this Fortune.com page where it just links the word 'cruise ships' when talking about tax on them to Wealth of Geeks article on highly-rated cruise ships. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GameMeca - a Korean gaming source?[edit]

Find video game sources: "GameMeca" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I've been having a debate on the Ragnarok Online talk page. And without spewing too much, as I'm exhausted; I'd like if enough people (credible, mods & admins preferred ofc) can verify the validity of this as a source as it doesn't appear in the source list whatsoever, reliable nor unreliable. However, based off what this site has to offer, they have information on things dating back as far as the early 2000's. 90's even it seems. Articles written in 2002 and stuff. To me, clearly this has been an organization operating for a long time and has plentiful of credible news and sources-to that has been under our radar that can provide info on much more things other than just the game I'm attempting to add additions to the article too. Especially under the "Net Power" game magazine section. It's so much history & coverage on gaming and old school MMOs on that site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ReeZy (talk • contribs)

GameMeca was established in 2000 by Jeumedia, a publisher that had a hand in creating video game focused Korean magazines including Game Power (1992), PC Power Zine (1995) and NET Power Zine (1999). So the website's history dates all the way back to the 1990s. I'm yet to check their editorial team to see if they have had notable people, but it is true GameMeca has a longer history and a more plausible claim to fame than a lot of Korean websites out there. --Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessing Hardcore Gamer post-Valnet acquisition[edit]

Hardcore Gamer, a currently reliable source that has been considered such for nearly two decades, was purchased by Valnet around a year ago. Knowing the status on Valnet sources here, a new discussion on the status of Hardcore Gamer is needed. Even if they weren't purchased by Valnet, the source was last assessed in 2006.

From what I see, while they publish a lot of game guide content, they still seem to publish decent reviews and appear to publish higher quality content than sites like CBR on average. Maybe it could still generally be used to demonstrate notability even after being purchased by Valnet? Some opinions here would be appreciated. λ NegativeMP1 20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They still seem okay for now. I agree that their content is higher quality than other Valnet sources. That may change in the future, but if they're still decent today I wouldn't preemptively downgrade them. As a personal anecdote, I really liked Marcus Estrada who covered a lot of niche Japanese/Visual Novel stuff that otherwise wouldn't get much English RS coverage. But it seems like he was a casualty of the Valnet acquisition, so RIP using him as a source. CurlyWi (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let's not be too purist about it. Valnet might be a red flag for some people, but it's not an instant disqualification. Organizations don't instantly change the moment they are acquired by new owners, and Hardcore Gaming seems to be holding its level of quality for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that would explain a few things. Some of their articles are terrible. I can't provide links because it's just a passing thought I've had while trying to source articles. If the ratio of good to terrible becomes worse, I guess we can revisit this. It'd be a pain in the ass for me, though, because I lean on this source more than I'd like to demonstrate notability for indie games. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't affect previously reliable coverage, but might affect things going forward. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game File[edit]

Find video game sources: "Game File" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Game File is a newsletter written solely by Stephen Totilo, the former editor at Kotaku (at least, during its period where there was no question to its reliability). Some parts of it are for paid subs, but most of the rest, spot checking, are accessible as long as you register your email. — Masem (t) 01:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading it for the last month or two. It's quality writing. No idea how newsletters like this fit into Wikipedia standards for reliability though. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerant[edit]

Is gamerant considered a reliable source that can be used as a reference? Infrabel1 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on the list with pretty detailed notes... Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make life easier for anyone else checking, Game Rant is listed as a Situational Source with the following note.
> Consensus is that it is not a high quality source, to be treated with caution and excluded from BLP pages. Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information are allowable areas. Sometimes erroneously spelled "Gamerant".
...Though as an aside, the first line of the note makes it sound like its describing an unreliable source to me with no info on why it's even situational included but I can see there has been plenty of discussion on it DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources to add among the reliable ones[edit]

I ask to add the following sources, https://www.gonintendo.com/, and https://www.spaziogames.it among the lists of reliable sources, thank you. 151.34.66.194 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked into Spaziogames as it's in Italian, but Go Nintendo doesn't seem like a reliable one unless you've got evidence to the contrary?
No editorial policy that I can see.
Authors are all pseudonyms like Editor in Chief "rawmeatcowboy" so can't check the staff history
No qualifications mentioned giving them expertise that I can see
They don't even seem to be on OpenCritic DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we've discussed GoNintendo in the past and landed on unreliable. Its usually a non-issue - they write very little original content. It's almost entirely "reposting" pre-releases or stories from other websites, in which, you can just use the source they're using if its reliable. I can only think of like one time that they reported on something that no one else had. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultured Vultures[edit]

I've seen this being used by multiple articles, so listing here so we can conclude if its reliable or not. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember coming across this source. IIRC, they get a bunch of random people with no prior experience to write for them. So, I'd say that they're unreliable. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd not disqualify for that alone. Other sites deemed as reliable and situational pick up students and those with no/little experience. They just don't advertise it. With a strong enough editorial staff, it could be acceptable and they seem to be trying to train people in-house.
Whether their output and editorial process is strong enough for that might be another question. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards unreliable too, based on the fact that they proclaim the inexperience of their writers as a feature. If I saw stronger evidence of editorial overview, I might reconsider. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CBR[edit]

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why CBR is listed as less reliable than other Valnet sources? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering the same thing. I think it should be treated like the other Valent sources; reliable pre-buyout and situational post-buyout. You can argue that it should be generally unreliable since 2023, due to the AI content, but otherwise, I would have it marked situational post-buyout. MoonJet (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above, though I will mention the claims AI content seems to have been a false flag, as we haven't seen signs of it and Valnet themselves stated it wasn't something they were pursuing (yet). Until we actually see evidence, I don't see a reason to go full unreliable at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick quote that I posted elsewhere before, but if they're not using AI, then I'd question their editorial standards even more when adding in 'hallucinated' information like this example:
> I saw them recently mentioned for an inaccurate article where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few quotes from other times this has been discussed that may add context
> CBR was a great source that had many experienced writers and received numerous awards for their journalism throughout the 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, they were acquired by Valnet and most of their writers left as they shifted to churnalism
>This is very much rumor mill right now, but this morning on Twitter, CBR founder Jonah Weiland shared a post, shared by another former CBR editor, of the CBR account, which was apparently removed, claiming that most of the news editors who had not already resigned had been fired as the site moved further into AI-driven content.
> I saw them recently mentioned for an inaccurate article where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PC Invasion[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Another untouched source for WP:VG/S. Is PC Invasion reliable? Supergrey1 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final Weapon[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Final Weapon is also not yet mentioned in WP:VG/S. Is it reliable? Supergrey1 (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick points to help evaluate:
The CEO Noah Roman isn't particularly qualified in terms of journalism/etc instead having qualifications on the ICT side, but the Managing Editor Raul Ochoa has experience as a News Writer at Games Rant (Valnet, Situational) and a degree in journalism which is somewhat promising at least.
There's no Editorial policy that I can see. They talk a little bit about their ethos and having standards that writers need to meet but that's it.
They note that a large portion of their writers started without any experience.
Their content seems good overall from what I've seen. They're on OpenCritic and have quite a bit of industry access which does indicate a certain minimum level of professionalism and notability, though shouldn't be taken as evidence alone. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GameLuster as a source?[edit]

Currently working on Draft:Papa Louie (game series) and found a great review by GameLuster, but didn't see this listed under any sources or in this talk archive. They seem to have a dedicated writing/senior staff where they do both reviews and game news: https://gameluster.com/

Would love to get input on this source and how reliable it may be. Squiddyonwiki (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beebom[edit]

Find video game sources: "Beebom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Is Beebom reliable or not? Supergrey1 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories