Talk:Game Science
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Controversy or nonsense gossip?
editThis “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 Wikipedia. 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
editThe 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. Wikipedia 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.[1] 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".[2] 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 Wikipedia page but were removed. These were linked by another user in the Talk section.[3][4]
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. Wikipedia 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."[5]
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.[3][4] 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.[6][7]
- ^ @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.
- ^ Gherzo, Alex (14 June 2024). "Games Journalists Target Black Myth: Wukong". Geeks + Gamers. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
- ^ a b Feng, Jenny (2 September 2020). "Chinese game developer faces boycott after CEO's sexually explicit remarks". The China Project. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
- ^ a b 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.
- ^ Games Journos HATE Black Myth Wukong on YouTube
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia page to praise Black Myth: Wukong. They're either reliable or they aren't. Which Wikipedia 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?[1][2] 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.[1]
- 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.[2] 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.[3] 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?[4] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
- I just want to point out that HK01 is chinese (HK), so if they wouldn't be "relying" on chatgpt translations because they probably can understand chinese natively...
- As a native chinese speaker myself, i can confirm that IGN's journalism is extremely off-the-mark. Their translations are literal one for one translations - even if you don't take into account idioms and context, you cannot translate chinese characters used in even as short as two character phrases literally into English. 你好 (Hello) translates to "you good" for example, 游戏 (Video games) translates to "Swim, theatrical play". And 被舔到勃起不能 translates (especially in context) translates into "All the job applicants were just complimenting me, and with no critical feedback we were unable to improve" with the english equivalent idiom being something like "They (applicants) kissed my ass so much my ass went numb". If I had IGN's journalistic standards, I would translate Khee Hoon Chan's tweet about pirating into 海盗 (maritime piracy) instead of 打板 (media piracy), which btw, 打板 translates literally into "upside-down table". They also translated 别(搞)同事 into "don't (screw) your coworkers" in order to give it a sexual context when 搞 would never be used by any native chinese speaker to do that.
- With that little bit of context, I hope you understand how much misinformation is contained in IGN's article. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:749A:6854:2A16:3F2C (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- sorry there was a typo, 盗版 is the phrase for media piracy. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:749A:6854:2A16:3F2C (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I already said, I agree that HK01 shouldn't rely on ChatGPT translations, but they're relying on Asmongold who uses ChatGPT translations instead of confirming the mistranslations themselves. They're damaging their own reporting by using Asmongold as their foundation. Also, as previously pointed out, other Chinese media outlets have translated the same information coming to a similar conclusion as IGN. Snakester95 (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, well I went and Baidu'd Rebekah Valentine and this is the first result that pops up.
- https://www.163.com/dy/article/J4T81FSF0526K1KN.html
- There is a passage in there: "而在文章中, Rebekah对一些内容做了误导性的翻译" in the context of the IGN article. You can translate it yourself using machine translations or chatgpt, or I can break down this translation for you as well:
- 而 = a kind of "decorator" word, in this case used to connect the title of the article immediately before to what she was doing with it.
- 在 = at
- 文章 = article
- 中 = usually means center or middle, but in this case it means inside/within [the article].
- 对 = usually means something liken "facing towards", in this case used to describe the verb's (creating misleading translations) subject (article)
- 一些 = a bunch of
- 内容 = inside of (referring to the article she wrote, the previous part of the article references it)
- 做了 = made
- 误导性 = deceptive, misleading
- 的 = just a grammar particle that attaches the descriptor of 误导性 to the subject 翻译
- 翻译 = translation
- immediately prior to this sentence is the title of this article, which is the subject described in the more context heavy translations.
- Let me know if you want me to do a deeper dive on Baidu or something. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh and, in case it wasn't clear from the above breakdown I did, "而在文章中, Rebekah对一些内容做了误导性的翻译" means she made up a bunch of misleading translations in her article. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I did a bit more digging. Here's another article from Sina Finance, this is pretty well known and should be reputable enough.
- https://finance.sina.cn/tech/2024-06-17/detail-inazaipv9924255.d.html
- Rebekah被指与该组织相交密切,同时在去年,她也曾针对游戏写过一篇名为《黑神话:悟空开发商的性别歧视历史是如何使西游之路复杂化的》的文章,而在文章中,Rebekah对一些内容做了误导性的翻译。
- Again confirming misleading translations. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b "抹黑《黑神话》的IGN撰稿人急了!呼吁玩家去玩盗版". GamerSky. 25 August 2024.
- ^ a b "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.
- ^ @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) - ^ 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)
- I don't care whether the IGN article has criticism or not. It's that these citations are unreliable. Which you've seen after removing my reliable sources and re-adding unreliable ones that other editors have then reverted. Criticism of the IGN article is fine, but many of the citations I addressed revolve around an extremist, unfound rumors, and a Weibo post. That's far from showing a reputation for fact checking. Which is why I brought up the SBI information. It's an example that addresses a lack of fact checking.
- Also, I'm sorry if you're not following my point about the claims HK01 is pushing. Anyone can post something on Weibo and then a website could report on that rumor. That doesn't make it true. And spending the time to fact check it is what makes you a journalist. They didn't verify the $7 million extortion claim. They didn't verify the claim that an IGN journalist is part of Sweet Baby Inc. They didn't verify if the mistranslations were true. Instead, they published dangerous claims and later on, doubled down on them via commentary. That's why I stated they're a questionable source.
- You also didn't address the GamerSky article. It's attributed to a username with no editorial control.
- If the IGN article has significant coverage, then there should be plenty of reliable sources to cite. Googling about it doesn't show me that many, but I'm only googling in English so I don't know how many Chinese articles there are on the topic. I've seen the Geeks + Gamers article, SmashJT who I've already pointed out shouldn't be sourced, and That Park Place which is right in line with G+G. Snakester95 (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Following up instead of editing my post since I didn't address part of your post that you edited in afterward. GamerSky using a username with no editorial control makes it harder to establish they're an expert. Which is important in the case of editorials and opinion commentary. While also supporting an extremist channel, which is part of the questionable sources section. Snakester95 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, you can go on baidu.com and search Rebekah Valentine's name. Might as well search khee hoon chan's name as well (I haven't yet).
- I found what should be a reliable source for you that without editorialization says that Rebekah Valentine included deceptive/misleading translations in her article. You can do more on your own, or I might do some later. I broke down the exact passage as a chinese speaker in the talk section above this one, but a quick google translate of this passage should confirm that she misled people in her article.
- 而在文章中,Rebekah对一些内容做了误导性的翻译。
- Source: https://finance.sina.cn/tech/2024-06-17/detail-inazaipv9924255.d.html
- Sina Finance. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- You linked me two websites that copy the GamerSky article. The Sina Finance link is actually from mydrivers which copies the GamerSky article. Which the 163 article also does. So there's no point in arguing the reliability of those two articles when they're copying/aggregating another one. Regarding the alleged mistranslation, both myself and another user have already linked two Chinese media outlets confirming the translations prior to IGN's report.
- 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/ Snakester95 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- The author of the Sina Finance article is 快科技官方, again considered reliable with a huge following. And it's on Sina Finance, which again, is considered reliable.
- What exactly do you mean Sina Finance copied gamersky? They're obviously different articles, and on top of that how did you even come to the conclusion that the latter copied the former? Not that either necessarily copied each other, but considering Sina Finance is the reliable source here and you seem to not like gamersky, wouldn't it be the other way around? 快科技官方 again, is a reliable source, and so is Sina Finance hosting the article, so if gamersky has the same content, wouldn't the fact that Sina/MyDrivers has this information lend credence to what gamersky is saying? Or would you now like to make some racist accusations about a plagiarism conspiracy?
- Please stop this, it’s beginning to look like you have a racist agenda to push instead of performing impartial analysis. what you’re doing very insulting to people who actually understand the language.
- Also, here's another article:
- https://news.18183.com/yxxw/202406/4886507.html
- Passage: 作者Rebekah Valentine再次污蔑《黑神话:悟空》多个开发者
- 污蔑 = making false accusations about someone 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Typo: "how did you even come to the conclusion that the latter copied the former?" should be "how did you even come to the conclusion that the former copied the latter?" (you accused sina finance of copying gamersky) 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just clicked on your page and found that your profile was warned for engaging in an edit war. Your bizarre responses now make a lot of sense in that context. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- 1. The Sina Finance article you provided originates from https://news.mydrivers.com/1/986/986313.htm and it links back to GamerSky. It also uses the same text, author, and editor as GamerSky. Just to clarify in case there's confusion, this GamerSky article: https://www.gamersky.com/news/202406/1775640.shtml
- 2. Your second source 18183 is better but I can't see a name attached to the article since Google Translate is only saying it is "Pen Name". Which may just be a translation issue. And they don't appear to have any editorial guidelines or policies. If there isn't a name attached to the article and any policies, that hurts their reliability. Regardless, that article doesn't question the translations and opts more toward reporting on IGN's statement regarding their report. Which is good instead of adding unsubstantiated rumors like many articles cited on this page have. If you need an example of the editorial policies I'm talking about: https://www.scmp.com/policies-and-standards
- 3. If you're going to make accusations instead of discussing the facts, check the Etiquette page. Snakester95 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm now aware that the gamersky article is the same as the sina finance one, so the same author 快科技官方 penned the same article for both Sina Finance and Gamersky
- a) How does that change the fact that Sina Finance published this article, and that both Sina Finance and 快科技官方 are individually reliable?
- b) How did you come to the conclusion that the Sina Finance article was copied from gamersky, instead of the other way around, or the more probable scenario: that the same author posted them on both sites? And that Sina Finance is still reliable and allowed this publication?
- c) Even on the minute chance you were correct that it was outright "copied", again, how does that change that Sina Finance is a reliable source and published it anyways? So what if it was a "copy"?
- 2a) No, it states very plainly that Rebekah Valentine slandered Game Science. In fact 污蔑 is a stronger statement in a chinese context than slander is in an english context.
- 2b) If we want to talk about source reliability, the translator in charge of the IGN translations advocated players pirate Wukong, is from singapore and wouldn't necessarily understand a chinese cultural context, and provided english "translations" that had numerous grammar issues and were massively disjointed from the context of the passages the mistranslated statements came from. The last part should raise red flags even for those without chinese language skills at all.
- For the record, I don't have an opinion on whether or not this blurb should be included. I am not a wikipedia editor. But I'm firmly of the opinion that if it is, it's only fair that chinese news media pushing back on obvious mistranslations should also be included.
- 3) you do not speak mandarin, yet you are nitpicking mandarin language sources and trying to speak as an authority on something that is painfully obvious to every chinese speaker, and which every chinese speaker that understands without an agenda would confirm. I do find it quite offensive that you are so pushy on this topic when you lack a huge proportion of requisite skills to adjudicate. The fact then that I am seeing those quite apparent journalistic double standards hinted at an air of ethnic bias to me, but I'll refrain from accusations from now on. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just want to ask: If an article is authored by an otherwise unreliable source such as dailymail, and then ArsTechnica and WSJ "repost" the article, wouldn't the source then be considered reliable? Why would we need WSJ and Arstechnica to individually write their own articles?
- Gamersky is actually also considered a reliable source of news within the chinese gaming community, which is much more than can be said for dailymail. So I don't understand why you're so unwilling to accept this information. A chinese news source is not going to give a detailed breakdown on translation errors because as I already pointed out, this is fairly obvious to people who speak mandarin, and they're a chinese language source so they're obviously not relying on their audience to understand the english portion of the breakdown anyways.
- Even if you have some bizarre issue with gamersky, both Sina Finance and MyDrivers seem to have republished their article, and the actual human author is probably the same for all three articles (although again, this is just an educated guess, and frankly irrelevant). The mere fact that both sources have republished this article should lead to its credence. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Why are the Black Myth: Wukong content creator guidelines off-topic?
editAn edit regarding the Black Myth: Wukong content creator guidelines censoring topics creators could discuss was reverted both on the Game Science and Black Myth: Wukong wiki. The guidelines were sent by Hero Games, but Hero Games is a co-publisher and co-producer on Black Myth: Wukong. If it's off-topic here, does it fit on the game page? Snakester95 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)