Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

AI writing - Kotaku and others

https://futurism.com/gizmodo-kotaku-staff-furious-ai-content

Probably too soon to make any changes, but something to keep an eye on Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

We were talking in the Discord relatively recently that Kotaku was already probably going to warrant another discussion. This just makes me even more certain we need to introduce new restrictions for its use. My take is that anything after the G/O acquisition should be treated with caution and anything after the introduction of AI should be treated as unreliable. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 18:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed a decrease in quality, but felt it wasn't enough to re-classify yet. This would be more than enough though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

A big issue that was brought to my attention by ScottishFinnishRadish recently is that the site's own writers don't consider it reliable at this point. In the comments sections, they're open that they write clickbait on their bosses' orders and don't have the time to research/fact-check. I don't have any examples on-hand at the moment but I'll post them when I do (or maybe someone else will post them). JOEBRO⁶⁴ 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the writers in danger of losing their jobs aren't exactly the most unbiased sources for whether it's reliable, so some examples of published inaccurate information would be called for.

That said, AI is generally known to pull up completely incorrect information, so it'd not be surprising. It's just whether the human editors and 'prompt engineers' are correcting it.

While I don't have examples to hand, Kotaku certainly isn't the only big website using AI either from what I've seen on Twitter. This could turn into a larger project with a lot of sites becoming unreliable or situational. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Discord? DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia themed Discord group. People casually chat about all sorts of things there. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been very vocal about deprecating Kotaku on Discord for quite a while (even before the whole AI thing), so I would be all for its deprecation, at least post-AI nonsense. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we used to have it labeled as something like "usable except for articles 2009 or earlier". I'm wondering if we'll have to revise to to something like "usable in the 2010s" or something. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

My proposed wording would be something across the lines of:

Content published by Kotaku between 2010 and 2018 is generally reliable, though editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance (such as [1]). Content published between 2004–2009 and 2019–2023 should be treated with caution due to weaker editorial standards; articles' usability should generally be judged by the author. Content post-July 2023 may be written by AI and should be generally avoided. In all cases, opinion pieces are covered by WP:RSOPINION.

Open to any suggestions. I think this can give us a sense of where to go from here. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If there's a caveat even for the content between 2010 and 2018, then I don't see that as a sign of a reliable source. Then again, with how often they get blacklisted from major publishers, I'm not surprised they wouldn't be reliable. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I use some of their deeper articles for a source of opinions, and honestly feel wholesale making them unreliable would cause serious damage to the site (even if the argument is made to allow certain authors, I know some editors would focus more on the whole "well it's marked unreliable" and try to nuke it from articles). I feel Joe's suggestion works to that end: protects us a bit more, and handles the ramifications of them doing this stupid AI crap.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, it could go the other way; people just use whatever content from Kotaku without scrutiny as it's marked reliable and they don't read the rather lengthy disclaimer. There are editors who seem to have a rather unambiguous view when it comes to sourcing, which seems to typically come down to 'is it on the list?' DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU, could you elaborate on the blacklisting or provide some examples? If it's the blacklistings I'm thinking about, those are for coverage of topics that publishers would rather bury: leaks, crunch, etc. Maybe there are others that I'm unfamiliar with? Woodroar (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Couple mentions of the Nintendo blacklisting them here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/05/03/how-exactly-did-the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-spoilers-leak-10-days-early/

https://sports.yahoo.com/video-game-journalist-sparks-backlash-220440812.html

Leaks are mentioned, but also Kotaku telling readers how well Metroid Dread works on emulators, with links to them, which does imply they've been testing (and are praising) a pirated copy of a new game. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with that case. I don't know, that seems like responsible journalism to me, a fifth estate stance. Kotaku did update the article, although it refused line edits that Nintendo requested. Pretty gutsy—of Nintendo, that is. Woodroar (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The Dread article was criticized/described as irresponsible by other journalists and outlets, including VGC, Destructoid, and Mike Drucker, fwiw JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the Destructoid piece as critical, really; more like expanding on what Kotaku mentioned about emulation and game preservation. The VGC piece, yeah, that was critical—though, to be frank, it was a sycophantic, pearl-clutchy take that we get from a lot of games media. Suggesting that games journalism shouldn't cover a topic like games piracy because it might hurt the publishers and then they won't reward us with games is ridiculous. I mean, the same things have been said about the music and film industries after the invention of recordable tapes, CDs, DVDs, etc. But look, I'm not here to argue that game piracy is good, just that it is, and it's a topic that games journalism should cover. That publishers blacklist journalists who do is contemptible. We should really be wary of the opposite: games media that toe the company line or cave to line edit requests because that's not actual, independent journalism. Woodroar (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest that video game media should cover piracy to an extent, but that the Kotaku article goes as far as promoting piracy, and pointing people towards some of the resources so they can perform illegal actions -- and for a new game at that, not in the context of a no longer legally accessible game or for games preservation. That's quite different from a neutral article covering the topic and more showing a lack of professionalism from the outlet (not even considering the view that some have suggested it's 'revenge' for not having pre-release access to Nintendo like other outlets its size). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they're promoting piracy so much as saying it's an option for a "solid game" (per their review) that's been locked to substandard hardware, and so is essentially inaccessible and a poor gaming experience to a large number of people. That's a common, publisher-neutral position from Kotaku, that exclusives are bad for consumers, particularly when they're tied to consoles with outdated specs. Kotaku also points out that emulation of a game at launch is almost unheard of, which is why the whole thing was newsworthy. (Plus, it's not like Nintendo is fine with emulation of a no longer legally accessible game, they'll sue over that, too—as Kotaku linked in the original version of the article.) You can call it unprofessional, that's fine, but I think this is the type of journalism that the project should value. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That argument seems to be entirely orthogonal to the question of whether or not Kotaku is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Advocacy or non-advocacy of piracy is not anywhere in the guidelines at WP:RS. You may find it personally distasteful for a publication to discuss software piracy ("advocacy" is a stretch to describe what they actually said, per Woodroar), but that has nothing to do with reliability. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example of an AI-generated article at Gizmodo/io9, complete with some inaccuracies. Per io9's deputy editor, the article was published with very little notice and outside their editorial structure. At least the author is listed as "Gizmodo Bot" so it's easy enough to identify.

(I left this same comment at WP:RSN.) Woodroar (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'll be the contrarian and oppose this proposal (since JoeBro brought up in the Discord that this discussion was happening here), especially the proposed wording that "Content may be written by AI and should be avoided." Where exactly is the proof of this? Specifically, that normal-seeming content is really AI written. The sole G/O Media example, of Gizmodo, appears to be cited to "Gizmodo Bot". Which is harmless as that's adequately identified. As long as Kotaku accurately marks their trashy content mill stuff, it's no big deal, and at worst a cause to caution "as per policy elsewhere, AI-written content since 2023 is unreliable." It doesn't impact their other work. Now, if Kotaku does start sneaking unattributed chatbot work in not marked, then sure, speedy deprecate, but let's see some proof of that first.
• On point two, should Kotaku be downgraded setting aside AI work, I'm also still not sold. G/O Media sucks, yes, but many/most games journalism sites have an unhealthy diet of clickbait on the side these days. The question is whether the "serious" work is also bad: stuff like game reviews. Again, I don't see any evidence presented that things are actually that bad. I just checked the front page as a "sanity check", and I see articles like this one on FF16 sales which looks basically fine, and also ridiculous saucy clickbait like this article on BG3 character customization including gentials. But you already shouldn't be citing clickbait anyway, even for sources marked reliable. To downgrade Kotaku, I'd want to see evidence that either it's 95% clickbait these days (doubtful), or that they're publishing seemingly-serious articles that are actually based on One Tweet A Random Guy Said Once.
• If we had to adjust it, and if we take seriously the claim that things have gotten worse recently compared to immediately after the acquisition, maybe something like this seems merited:

  Content published by Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 is generally reliable, though editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance (such as [2]). Content published between 2004–2009 and 2023– should be treated with caution due to weaker editorial standards; articles' usability should generally be judged by the author. Content written by AI is not reliable. In all cases, opinion pieces are covered by WP:RSOPINION.

  SnowFire (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  The proof is in the article I listed starting off this article, though to be clear, I opened this discussion as more of a "something to keep an eye on moving forward" more than something to take action on right away. My true stance, in this very moment, is probably closer to your proposed version. Though Kotaku writes some rough content these days that's hard to defend, so I'm kind of uncertain at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 11:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  The article links proof of accuracy issues with Bankrate and CNET (Buzzfeed is mentioned as poorly-written, which doesn't necessarily mean wrong information).

  Kotaku is only mentioned as 'furious' about the change (unsurprising that people whose jobs are in danger/being devalued would be angry) and having it tested on their site. So for Kotaku I'd suggest that having AI content is evidenced, but not that the AI content in question is inaccurate.

  While on a personal level I'd not be surprised if their AI content isn't carefully fact-checked by editors and I don't exactly think their quality is great at times, I just think evidence of the inaccuracy for Kotaku specifically or a look at if they clearly label it would be in order before changes. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sergecross: I read the futuresim article again, and I still don't see it claiming that unattributed AI content is going to start appearing. I think that at the very least, we can wait a little more and see how accurate this is - unedited AI writing has some tell-tale signs, so we'll know soon enough after Twitter dunks on some Kotaku article saying something wildly crazy or making an error no human would.

  DakeruTomoe: Oh, no doubt, chatbot AI work is worthless. I just don't think it's been shown yet that this will be happening in any random Kotaku article. SnowFire (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Where exactly is the proof of this? I was just going off the example set by CNET. My proposal is just a draft, after all. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well said, SnowFire. People have weird hateboners for Kotaku already so I don't see any value in a hasty kneejerk reaction in either direction. The fact that Kotaku editors are "furious" should be seen as an indication that any (potential future) AI content on Kotaku will either be clearly marked, or else obvious through malicious compliance. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'd agree that a kneejerk reaction isn't warranted, but from the article, Kotaku "writers" are furious, with no mention of the two cited being editors. Unless you've looked into it further and found they have editorial control, I don't see reason to believe their opinions would mean AI content would be clearly marked. If anything, it might just mean those individual writers may not engage with AI content. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Kotaku's managing editor, senior editor, and staff editor are all explicitly against G/O Media's decision, and its editor-in-chief and other senior editor have expressed support for GMG Union's statement. I think it's safe to say that those with editorial control are opposed. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't hold anything against Kotaku (in fact, I still read the site pretty regularly), my main issue is that since the site fell under G/O, the quality of their output declined—they lost a good chunk of their staff (notably Jason Schreier, who said he doesn't think G/O cares about journalism, and Stephen Totilo) and their content became a lot more clickbaity and less useful, to the point that it reminds me of a Valnet property like TheGamer. (On their front page right now, they've got an article based on what gamers have been saying on Reddit, and that's not even mentioning stuff like this.) I don't fault the Kotaku writers (it's basically all the fault of G/O management, who care more about ad revenue than anything else), nor do I think their editorial decline has been as severe as it has at other G/O properties like Deadspin. But I do think there is a problem here, and we should think about ways to deal with it going forward. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Have we yet seen an AI-written article appear at Kotaku? I am more curious on how they by-line it because that will make IDing really easy. --Masem (t) 16:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. I'm wary of AI articles, but I'd rather allow our guidelines to be designed around actual practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Further reading

• https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/technology/2023/7/18/23798164/gizmodo-ai-g-o-bot-stories-jalopnik-av-club-peter-kafka-media-column - a bit more detail and context, for what it's worth. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  While not specifically to do with Kokaku, et al, I did come across this earlier as something else to look out for:

  "PSA for game news/reviews/guides freelancers: Getting reports of people seeing AI chatbot-generated articles being thrown up onto sites under the bylines/accts of *former* staff. Check in on your old outlets, make sure they're not publishing in your name after you've left."

  Source :Josh Tolentino who writes for a number of respected sites, including Siliconera, Destructoid, and RPG Site,

  https://twitter.com/unangbangkay/status/1685459869401559040 DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

HiConsumption

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

https://hiconsumption.com/tech/best-video-games-of-all-time/ This list was made quite casually over a few beers, but I think what defines "great" art is arbitrary enough for this to count. ESPN NFL 2K5, for one, would be up to 4 listings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alena 33 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That's...uh...not really how we determine reliability/usability on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Well how about you read it, and decide for yourself? Alena 33 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ehhh. A top 100 article from 8 years ago written by a "former stand-up comic" whose other jobs are all marketing related, published at a site known for its listicle churnalism. This is pretty much the opposite of what we're looking for, source-wise. Woodroar (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I dont know why we'd think a list that starts out saying that their approach was getting drunk in their mothers basement would be an authority on the greatest video games of all time. Sounds like they had a good time, and I'm happy for them. But I don't think it has any place here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Anime Corner

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

Checking on the reliability of this one, and while they're primarily anime there is overlap between that and gaming, and it does cover some gaming-related subjects. Google Scholar shows it cited in one published paper. About page lists credentials for all the contributors and also indicates an editorial process, though talking with User:ferret prior to this, they did point out many of the staff are fresh out of college or pursuing additional degrees. That said we could really use another good anime website to cite, given the heavy reliance on ANN right now.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I would've leaned unreliable, unless there's anything to move the needle.

The News Editor in Chief graduated from Cambridge Centre with a CAE in English, which seems to just be a qualification showing they can use English at a professional level. It's a qualification used to apply for universities among other things (basically like an IELTS OR TOEFL). They're pursuing other education. Essentially no relevant qualifications for an Editor in Chief, other than being able to use English to a certain level.

The managing editor has a degree in Journalism and Communications which is more promising. They mention working odd jobs in media, but I can't find a LinkedIn, any reference to them working for other websites, or any mention of them being involved in the anime community as they claim.

Eric Himmelheber has professional experience and Georgia Hill has a degree in Media and Communications, specialising in Journalism and Screen Studies, but they're just writers. The vast majority of the writers have little relevant qualifications or experience in terms of journalism. They do have a good Editorial Policy as an upside. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That's disappointing, I would've hoped they would've at least been situational in terms of the lead staff itself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Let the discussion run a bit longer. Being college educated in writing fields is worth something in the world of credentials. Better than the "I love Mario and bought an NES in 1990" credentials so many Fansites have. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to bump this discussion, but I would like some opinions on it. I would like to use this article in a character article here I've been organizing the reception for, and would rather be safe than sorry when it comes to citing it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

While not for the Video Game Project, on the Anime Project (which is generally less strict on sources due to the nature of the topic), Link20XX also gave the opinion that it didn't meet the bar for reliability. You may wish to check their reasons why here. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misreading that because @Link20XX: seems to be saying the opposite and that he feels it could be reliable, albeit barely?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

More specifically here, which I agree: "As far as Anime Corner, I admit that I am not very familiar with this website, so I might be okay considering them to be marginally reliable but definitely not a "high-quality source" for controversial claims."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Anime Corner is the only one that has a chance, but I still don't believe it meets the bar for reliability".

It's somewhat mixed to be fair, as they do go on to say that later (with the might in italic, presumably to stress they might be okay to consider them as marginally reliable, not certainly do).

Considering this is a different project, I'd only really take it for information (as below), and not a vote for or against reliability. Personally I'd find it hard to justify as reliable though based on information presented.

> While it has been used in Anime Trending (which is marginally reliable), it has not been used in any other major sources and while its contributor page boasts about the degrees of its writers, I couldn't find anything by them from other publications, though I didn't check super thoroughly. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I've pinged him into this discussion to be safe. Let's see what he has to say more directly here so we're not discussing his view by proxy, especially in light of the article I brought up to use (since in that case, we're citing the person's opinion for reception)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know if Link gets involved in the games project, but that's a better way if they want to present a view. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning reliable - They have a dedicated staff that seems to largely consist of college educated writers, and they've got a detailed editorial policy. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add as a note here, since the discussion started, the Chief Editor listing has changed from 'currently pursuing a degree in information technology at the University of Montenegro' to 'graduated'.

  On one hand, this does make a more promising case. They still don't have a relevant qualification for an EiC, but they're a graduate at least.

  On the other hand, if I want to be suspicious, this was edited within a week of my above comment pointing this out as a reason why I'm learning unreliable as a source. It does make me wonder if they've been informed of this discussion due to the timing! I don't doubt it's true though, as it was on the earliest snapshot in 2021, so it wouldn't be a surprise if they've graduated.

  23rd Sept 2021 Snapshot

  24 June 2023 Snapshot

  1st July 2023 Snapshot

  I do think this is one of the better anime sites and being niche does earn it some flexibility, but I also think a lot of other sources have been dismissed as unreliable for things that also apply here, such as not having staff work at other sites, limited citing by reliable sources, and so on. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, I usually like to see more industry credentials, but educational credentials and an editorial policy are weighted pretty heavily to me. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  After consideration, with the update to the educational status, the editorial policy, lack of being able to find any points against the site that would damage their reputation and their general level of quality, I think I'll change from unreliable to Leaning reliable too. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for not coming here sooner but I didn't get the ping and I usually don't have any reason to view this page. However I don't have any qualms with listing it as reliable; the findings by DarkeruTomoe are very detailed and well thought out. My only concern would be how it handles controversial topics (especially related to BLPs) due to many of its writers having little experience in anime, but that can be denoted with a note and is just a minor bit of skepticism on my part. Link20XX (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

COGConnected

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

Has a considerable use in WP, but was never officially discussed. Their about us lists staff, but it doesn't really mention credentials. Skyshifter ^talk 01:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

New Game Network

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

Website founded in 2009 with some use on WP. Their staff page doesn't mention any credentials. Skyshifter ^talk 01:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Dexerto RfC at RSN

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Reliability_of_Dexerto, given that it has been discussed a few times here I thought I would provide a note here. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

GameGrin

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

Has some use on WP. Consensus seems to be that the source is unreliable [3], but it wasn't officially discussed & isn't included in VG/S. Their staff page doesn't mention any credentials. Skyshifter ^talk 01:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at previous discussion, their about page, and investigating their recent output (which doesn't look substantial), leaning Unreliable. I'm also not sure what you can do with an account on the site, but that might not be a very good sign either. NegativeMP1 20:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The Loadout

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

Was previously discussed but came to no conclusion with two responses total. According to LinkedIn, they were founded in 2019. According to their about page, they are primarily an Esports and console gaming oriented site and are owned by Network N (owner of two reliable sources, PCGamesN and Wargamer). Their deputy editor allegedly went to the University of the West of England and have been a gaming writer for a while. NegativeMP1 20:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

As of right now, staff writer Kyle Wilson has published no less then 7 articles in the past 2 hours ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) and 11 articles in the past 6. ([11], [12], [13], [14]) Similarly, "guides editor" Echo Apsey has published 18 articles within the past 24 hours. These examples combined with the lack of any published editorial policy (aside of testing) only allows me two conclusions: either articles are being pumped out a breakneck pace with zero possibility for editorial oversight or they are an AI article farm. Either way, I would stay far away from this source on this alone. - Skipple ☎ 21:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok good thing to point out, I'm not a big fan of how these articles seem to be written either. Very possible that these are AI generated, especially since there's no more than a thirty minute time difference between the articles being published. NegativeMP1 21:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Another note, given the verbiage The Loadout uses, I don't believe they are actually owned by Network N, rather partnered for advertising purposes. The Network N terms and conditions seem to indicate as much. Regardless, I wouldn't put much credence behind being associated with the organization. According to their own site, Network N has over 180 partner websites. I wouldn't treat that as any testament to reliability. - Skipple ☎ 22:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't necessarily a testament to reliability, but rather something to note. Regardless that does also seem to be the case here. Leaning unreliable for this source, but I opened the discussion for a reason. NegativeMP1 22:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Not The Loadout, but I checked another site seemingly related to Network N in some way that is labeled inconclusive as well ("Pocket Tactics"), and I see a very absurd amount of non-human level output. If this discussion ends in Unreliable, would Pocket Tactics also be able to be labeled unreliable? NegativeMP1 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Comic Book Resources

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

This is a website that has been mentioned before in previous discussions, but no clear consensus on its reliability or whether it should be used in video game articles or not has been decided.

Comic Book Resources is a website that was founded in 1995 that covers comics and film, but also covers video games. It was, however, acquired by Valnet Inc. in 2016. It is currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References as mostly reliable and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources as situational.

They appear to have a proper staff and writing team according to their about page, with people such as Robert Kirkman and Gail Simone. Their "Lead Gaming" editor is Tenan Fontes, who according to Muck Rack wrote for Cubed3 (situational) and has articles at Game Rant and TheGamer such as thing #1 and thing #2. Not sure about other editors or their other coverage on video games. Per other Valnet sources here, this will likely land at situational. NegativeMP1 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Valnet content is reliable, post-Valnet content unreliable. 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. Nowadays the only part of the site I would call reliable is Brian Cronin, but he doesn't write about video games. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 00:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, Gail Simone doesn't appear to have worked for CBR for over 20 years, and Robert Kirkman only briefly wrote a weekly column 18 years ago. As comic book writers, it appears neither wrote about video games. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Valnet garbage now. Situational at best. -- ferret (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Situational per the other Valnet sources. Personally I'd argue larger articles should be good to help with reception sparingly across the board for Valnet, especially if the author has worked with other publications. But I definitely don't see why it shouldn't be treated the same as the others are at the moment.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Situational - despite their acquisition by Valnet, I've actually found them to be on the slightly upper tier of the reliable spectrum. Articles like this definitely resemble actual journalism as opposed to sensationalism - it's a comprehensive history and retrospective piece that wouldn't feel too out of place as a Polygon feature article. Plus, as noted in previous discussions they do have fairly decent editorial control. For opinion-based articles, retrospectives and the occasional listicle I think it's okay to use, and should be evaluated case-by-case. It's probably not the best source for FAs, but GAs should be fine. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I will note from personal experience writing A Death in the Family (comics) that I haven't faced problems getting pre-Valnet content through FAC. Worth remembering CBR is primarily a comics-oriented site, so their content wouldn't apply to WPVG articles in most scenarios. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would even give this source "situational". But I'd compare it most closely to Game Rant, Screen Rant, and The Gamer. Used with extreme caution, and under specific circumstances. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Valnet reliable, post-Valnet unreliable. As if their post-Valnet content wasn't bad enough, CBR/Valnet laid off 3 of their editors in May and apparently fired the rest recently to focus on AI-driven content. Woodroar (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If CBR didn't cover video games until post-Valnet (which I believe to be the case), following thiswould it even be worth considering this source situational? NegativeMP1 01:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Valnet reliable, post-Valnet unreliable per above. Thanks for this discussion. I've always wondered how I thought they were fine back in the day, but just churnalism garbage in recent years. The Valnet purchase certainly explains it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

AI content and firing of editors

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. Unsubstantiated at this time, but if true, any question of reliability going forward needs closed. I really really think we're close to a full depreciation of Valnet properties. -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The question is would we say it's unreliable from this point forward entirely, or retroactively back to ValNet's takeover? The latter makes me worry about the chain reaction it'd cause to articles across the board here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

In the section at the top of the page about Kotaku, we talked about treating AI stuff similar to USERG/user blogging style stuff, where we're okay with websites as long as they label it as such so we can stay away from it. (For example, being okay with an article clearly written by an established staff writer, but not being able to use articles written by user "Poopmaster87" or "AIbot". If websites do this, then I like that approach. It wouldn't affect my stance on Valnet's junk, but it could help against that "domino effect" you refer to if, for example, IGN or Polygon ever dip their toes into the AI waters. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The more conservative approach of "post-July 2023 content generally unreliable" or "AI-labeled content is unreliable" I think is preferable (the latter applying to anyone using it.) If they aren't marking such content, then I agree deprecation is probably necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm throwing my support behind marking CBR situational (pre-Valnet reliable, post unreliable) and deprecating other Valnet properties if this becomes true, especially the Rants. The Valnet sources write and do things very similarly (with a marginal quality increase at TheGamer), and it's possible this will apply to all Valnet sources not just CBR. NegativeMP1 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a shame, because there is a thin part of those sources that can be insightful or useful. But I agree that they are becoming less and less reliable, particularly as they become an AI-based, volume-based business. I support some sort of deprecation after July, and perhaps would consider sooner if consensus develops around another suggestion. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

DreadXP

Find video game sources: "DreadXP" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo This is an unusual one but seems reliable as a genre-specific source in the vein of Bloody Disgusting. Founded in 2019 as a site that provides fairly regular review, interview and editorial content on independent horror games. However, the site is also used as a vehicle for media and game publishing, although the review content is not reviewing its own self-published releases. The site seems to have something resembling a team [15] but it is unclear what is editorial and what is development. The articles seem to have some experienced writers. Joel Couture has written for Siliconera and Gamasutra/Game Developer. Jay Krieger has written for Bloody Disgusting. The content is not user-contributed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Can't find a staff page, editorial policy, or anything. Being a game studio is an interesting conflict of interest problem. I'm interested in what other views/opinions come in, but I honestly... don't want to dig heavily at this one. Their webpage is very heavy and slow to load for me. In general though, the truly commercial nature of this particular site as a combination of a game studio and game store, with some journalist content, makes me very wary. -- ferret (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very unorthodox business structure. The best I can say is that the writing staff are experienced reviewers and there doesn't seem to be an overlap between the review/editorial content and the production. It's a shame as the coverage is quite good, but reliability problems are common with minor review sites. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

GGRecon

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

GGRecon is a gaming and esports news network that was launched in December 2019, based out of the UK. I've only been aware of it from the esports side of things, as I believe it was originally only an esports news outlet, but it seems to have expanded to general video game news and reviews as well. In the past, I've been hesitant to use it as a source, mainly due to its infancy, but now that its been established for the better part of three years, I want to start a discussion on its reliability. On a base level, the site has an in-depth policies page and its list of staff (22), many of which have listed past experience writing for outlets and/or degrees in the field. I find nothing wrong with the content they produce, and in my opinion, the site should be considered reliable. I urge others to take a look at their content (News, Reviews, Originals) and give their opinion. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 22:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that I see no real problems with the content produced and I think it could be considered reliable. However, while I wouldn't use this to judge anything, I want to point out that some of these staff writers wrote for Dexerto, an unreliable source (ex. Lloyd Coombes (editor-in-cheif), Ava Thompson-Powell, and Alex Garton). However, most do have degrees, and I'll just assume that the outlet they wrote for doesn't matter here. NegativeMP1 06:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

GoneGold

I've deliberately not linked this site directly, because the domain has lapsed and it is now a phishing site.

Gonegold.com does as it says, lists the store dates of various games after they have finished development. A safe example page via archive.org is here

It dates from the early 2000s, has minimal creator info and no indication of reliability. It is currently in use as a reference on 30 articles (see search)

Personally, I think it's an obvious open and shut case of not reliable; my main reason for bringing it here is to get it logged should it ever arise again. - X201 (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User sourced by email reports to the site maintainer. Unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Capsule Computers

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

Capsule Computers is currently used in 13 articles. It was mentioned once on this board with consensus for being unreliable. They have About Us, Review Guideline, and Staff pages, but I'm not seeing many credentials from their staff. Worryingly, they have volunteer contribution options with very basic requirements. I checked and didn't see any reliable or even situational sources linking to them. QuietCicada (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Very obvious, quick case that this should be unreliable. I see nothing on credentials and the contribution requirements being as low as they are makes the site fail WP:USERG. NegativeMP1 20:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Games That Weren't

Find video game sources: "Games That Weren't" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Here's a website that I've come across in my work on writing about cancelled video games. At my first glance, I wasn't sure it looked like reliable source in our sense, but I came across some new information, so I thought I'd throw it out there and see what people think.

The website is "Games That Weren't". It focuses on cancelled video games and games preservation.

• The website has an About Us page, but it doesn't establish a ton, but it does show they've got an established team of writers and editors and don't submit WP:USERG stories.
• The website is run by Frank Gasking. He has his own WordPress Blog, so "Games That Weren't" does not function as a personal blog or anything.
• According to this interview:
  • He is both college educated and employed in the field of web/software design.
  • "Games That Weren't" was approaching 20 years old back in 2013, which means he's means the website, in some capacity, appears to have been operating for almost 3 decades.
  • He wrote a book on the research he did over the years on his website, and got it published a couple years ago.

Anyways, its not like they'd ever be used for reviews or contentious BLP stuff, and probably wouldn't be used towards notability either, but I wondered if they could be used sparingly when needed on details for cancelled games and game preservation type stuff. To be used in the same way we use Sega-16 or HardcoreGaming101, both currently on our list.

Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, not seeing anything that would make it flat out unreliable. NegativeMP1 20:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

GTW has been going around for years and i've used it several times. I lean towards GTW being reliable. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Fanbyte

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

I don't see why this site is marked in the "reliable" section. The 2021 discussion reads as "why not" with no discussion of the reliability criteria apart from its freelancers. Source reliability rests in the publication's editorial controls, not the individual contributors. The site has no hallmarks of reliability. No about page or editorial policy. No reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. It's a content farm with mostly gameguide content. It should be delisted. czar 15:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with discussing and exploring further, but "a new websites started and run by a bunch of writers from websites we consider reliable" is hardly some sort of throw-away response either. That said, while I've anecdotally used it as a source without issues with quality, it looks like the site went through some changes a year ago. You and I may very well be talking about ver different versions of the same website. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Fanbyte laid off most of their staff and shifted to game guide stuff in September 2022. Before that, they had a staff full of familiar names across our RS sphere, including Polygon/Waypoint's editor Danielle Riendeau as EiC. I'd say to handle it how we handle CNET, pre-September 2022 content is reliable, post-September 2022 content is unreliable. Seems easy enough. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I support JoeBro's stance, though one thing to point out is that the articles seem to have their dates routinely updated (which is a weird practice), so might make mention of using sites such as Wayback to actually determine *when* something was posted.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the post-September 2022 note. The layoffs changed everything, but it wouldn't invalidate their prior work. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, their current output is certainly game guide and churnalism junk, but they originally put out some pretty good, in-depth writeups. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Insider Gaming

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

Fairly new source that started in September 2022. They have an about page that says basically nothing and a staff list that lists four people; Tom Henderson, Albert Perkins, Mike Straw, and Grant-Taylor Hill. I can't find anything on these writers except that Henderson is allegedly a reputable insider based on some Google searches (which doesn't mean anything). The site also claims to be trusted by reliable sources such as CNET (seen here and here), USA Today (seen here), The Verge (seen here and here), IGN (seen here), and Gamespot (seen here. They also have successfully reported on future events such as Call of Duty 2023 being titled Modern Warfare III and the existence of the PlayStation Portal. More of their original content can be found here. Due to its use in reliable sources, I'm leaning possibly reliable, but I'm looking for a consensus. NegativeMP1 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: They also reported on the PlayStation 5 refresh with a detachable disc drive more than a year before it was revealed and the beta weekend dates for Modern Warfare III before they knew the games name. NegativeMP1 16:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Their insider information generally seems legitimate but that doesn't make them a reliable source, in my opinion, especially due to the lack of any public editorial policy (that I can see). If any of their reports are notable, as inferred above by being mentioned in reliable sources, we can just use those reliable sources instead. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  If the content they publish seems legitimate and reliable, but the lack of editorial policy is a concern, wouldn't that just make them not usable for controversial BLP statements, rather than completely unreliable? NegativeMP1 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  The information they publish is usually legitimate (as in, they have good insider contacts), but that does not make the content or the source itself reliable. I don't think they should be used for anything directly, personally speaking. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

EarlyGame Group

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

Sources that I keep running into whenever I try to do research for something beyond the reliable sources search engine. This is a group based in Germany that operates five different sites: EarlyGame, RiftFeed, Valorfeed, MobileMatters, and "Obsidian" (which is just a Facebook page.) The focus of this topic is EarlyGame itself, which is the main site and can be used as a sort of basis to judge the others. It claims to be a leading video game and Esports site with a large user base of five million active users.

I did some surface level research on EarlyGame and they appear to have an about page, but it is incomplete, weirdly worded, and does not list anything of substance about the writers. The lack of last names here and ability to extend the information about the writers on their own pages makes it difficult to determine whether or not these staff are legit journalists. They do however claim to have partnerships with companies such as Toyota, but they claim so through a job listing page.

Upon further research on their imprint page, the group also seems to be part of "eSports Media GmbH", whatever that is. This page lists two people, Fabian Furch and Leopold Ingelheim, both of which I can't find anything about, and the aforementioned weak about page makes the main thing about Fabian that they are a "Former semi-professional Counter-Strike player". As for their content itself, [16] [17] [18] and [19]. I'm leaning towards unreliable solely due to the inability for me to find proof this site can be legit. NegativeMP1 22:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is the link you meant to refer to: https://earlygame.com/about-us PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, markup error. NegativeMP1 01:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Large staff list with little journalism credentials, many lacking a bio at all. Some of the most senior people do have education though in "Social Media" and "Marketing". Multiple articles denote their authors are "freelance" or currently in school. No explanation of editorial policy or controls, nor any clear EiC title. Both "Deputy Content Leads" have no journalism credentials put forth other than one says "Now has >5 years gaming journalism experience"... presumably all at EarlyGame. Lean Unreliable -- ferret (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Three defunct websites

Let's get these dead websites reviewed so users editing about old games will have a quick guide to turn to.

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

• A website that delivered news, features, previews, and reviews from 1997 until 2001. It was owned by CMP Media, the same company that owned Gamasutra, and if its list of staff at the time of shut down is to be believed, it was rather impressive. The site's link now redirects to the website of Informa, the company's successor. While arguably the best contender of the three for reliability, unfortunately, not all the pages for the sources have been archived, at least not on the Internet Archive, and I dread that, in the absence of someone coming forth with the missing content, pages like those have been lost in limbo. It may very well feel like a Pyrrhic win if it does get counted as reliable.

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

• Gamers.com was founded in 1996 as a website geared toward hardcore gamers by Dennis "Thresh" Fong. Thus, the website bears relation with FiringSquad, also founded by Thresh and a reliable source. Like FiringSquad, it seems to have also been widely covered by the press and cited as a source of information. It was bought in 2001 by Ziff Davis and seems to have ceased publishing content in 2006 and shut down the next year. In case someone doubts its credibility, one of its writers wrote for 1Up, another became editor-in-chief for Maximum PC and Head of Hardware for PC Gamer US, and a third freelanced for IGN for about twelve years. One of its operators edited the previews column for GameSpot; was executive editor for GMR and 1Up; and editor-in-chief for Electronic Gaming Monthly and Ziff Davis. A multimedia producer edited for Computec's Incite website, wrote for GameSpy, and authored over 50 strategy guides for Prima Games, as well as about 10 for BradyGames. I am sure I do not need to dig up more evidence to explain why I think the website is reliable.

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

• Not so much a website as it was a network of game websites founded in 2003 and hosted by Gameworld Industries, including Gameworld Network, as well as Console Gameworld, as well as platform-specific sites such as PC Gameworld, Cube Gameworld, Dreamcast Gameworld, N64 Gameworld, PS2 Gameworld, PSX Gameworld, and Xbox Gameworld and two others not relevant for this discussion. It should be noted that PC Gameworld first appeared five years before the network. Not much was said about the websites then, but it seems that the gaming press was well aware of it and occasionally cited it. In 2008, the same year that the network collapsed, one of its writers left to become an editor for PC Gamer US, eventually ascending to become the magazine's global editor in chief. Another worked as a freelance writer for GameZone the next year. A third wrote for Polygon and Vice Media's Waypoint, as a freelancer for G4, Joystiq, Kill Screen, and MTV, and became editor-in-Chief for Game Developer. I understand that there have been at least four discussions, the consensus of which does not clearly favor reliability. At a minimum, it should be classified as situational, where the reliability of the author is determined on a case-by-case basis.

FreeMediaKid$ 22:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Nintendo Times

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

I've started this because I noticed that it has not been discussed yet. ภץאคгöร 19:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently split on this one with the surface level information I got at a quick glimpse. They're long running and have gone for 33 years, but I also don't see much information about them directly in terms of credentials. Is there any more information about them that I'm simply not seeing right now? NegativeMP1 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Where are you seeing they have been in business for 33 years? Copyright says 2015-2023. There's no About Us page. Unreliable. There's no author credentials provided, etc. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw the 33 years thing due to a review that was published thirty years ago and a banner saying it. Either way I agree with it being Unreliable. NegativeMP1 21:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

They appear to set review publication dates to match game release dates, which is... really dumb. -- ferret (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The site's shtick is that it occasionally posts articles as if it was 30 years ago. According to the EiC's LinkedIn, the site was established in July 2015. He seems to write the bulk of the content, safe for some of those retro reviews. IceWelder [✉] 21:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable. Such stellar staff blurbs as Adam “McSNES” Martinez, gaming drop-out and FuncoLand ghost, has spent his entire life training to review games for YOU, the loyal readers of Nintendo Times. Adam is permanently banned from Final Fantasy XI: Online, his favorite game. and Aaron got his NES in 1991 and has loved and collected video games ever since. In addition to gaming, he enjoys Stephen King novels, Twins Baseball, and his cats. inspires little. Their publication date shenanigans noted above is terrible. The EIC claims widespread industry but only denotes they contribute to Gaming Age, currently a situational source for unclear reasons. It seems Gaming Age is claimed to have been part of IGN, but now is related to NeoGAF, an unreliable source. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable per ferret and their weird date stuff. That's a fun gimmick (for some I guess) but not great for use as a factual source. This very discussion is all the proof you need that it causes confusion among readers (and rightfully so.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• The website is even powered by Wordpressan example of an unreliable Wordpress blog (clarify wording per below, I am not categorically saying all Wordpress blogs are unreliable)- at the bottom of the page there is a small note that Theme: ColorMag by ThemeGrill. Powered by WordPress. (Emphasise mine) There is zero about us, no editorial policies, no staff expertise, and limited USEBYOTHERS (OpenCritic uses it and it's mentioned once in a book, but that's about it). I would say that it is a patently unreliable source. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Many reliable sources use WordPress. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: To clarify, I agree that many Wordpress sources can be reliable if there are subject-matter-expertise or editorial policies and staff listings, which is supported by the RSP entry itself. My point was that this one is purely a Wordpress blog and not a reliable website that only uses WordPress as a platform. Apologies for not making this clearer. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, WordPress used to be a trademark of an unreliable blog, but that's not really the case any more in recent years. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I wanted to chime in and say that while i have never used the reviews of Nintendo Times in any article i've worked on so far, i have used their NES Hub (https://www.nintendotimes.com/nintendo-entertainment-system-game-hubs/) as a guide to find sources for NES games. Not every North American NES title is listed but a good chunk of them have their own dedicated pages with sources talking about the game! Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Pure trash. One gets the impression of reading a high school or college student-run online magazine, but one without any teacher or professor oversight. That, or it's just a few Gen Xers or millennials who purport to be running an online magazine, but I am inclined to believe have not read a single article from any of what we would consider reliable sources as a guide to quality journalism. To be fair, if they thought that sources in the green are less trustworthy than those in the dark red or even gray, then to them Nintendo Times must be more reliable than The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Globe and Mail, The Daily Telegraph, and The Times combined. As far as the content of the website goes, it turns out that the "misdated" articles carry the "Warp Zone" tag, which is "a unique section that aims to recreate what happened 30 years ago today. All articles and reviews will be written as if from that time period." That's. Just. Pointless. There is no point that a publication should ever date their reviews like that, or really reenact the past without justification. Besides that, I see red flags everywhere, including, as others have pointed out, nothing about author credentials or ethics, and the fact that other publications would rather that one not know about this one. In short, while the authors may not be bad people, they certainly are not good journalists either, and Nintendo Times can be disposed of as a source of facts the next time one eats out. Also, pardon my arrogance early on. (Redeeming quality: It does have PDFs of scans of manuals, newsletters, magazines. In fact, I could have used it to upload issues of Computer Entertainer on the Internet Archive, though I ended up getting the scans from two other websites.) FreeMediaKid$ 00:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Press Start

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

The website is an Australian video game news and review site that is a subsidiary of a major national media company Southern Cross Austereo. Has a fixed review team and the website contains a review guideline that includes a guide of ethics and scoring system that affirms editorial independence under the Australian Journalists Association. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• I will be the first to give an opinion and the one to make sure that this section has an opinion. I looked at the review and team sections, and I found the review section satisfactory. However, I had to consider the team members individually, so here is what I found. A freelance writer had his articles published on Gizmodo and Kotaku, and also edited for PC World Australia. One person contributed to Game Informer, and another worked for Hyper and PC Powerplay. One writer freelanced for IGN and Kotaku, as did another for IGN. I admit, I had hoped to see more. Then again, I could have gotten nothing about staff credentials at all. It does get better, though. I had to look up Southern Cross Austereo, which bought the website in 2016, and it turns out that the organization has won over 300 Australian Commercial Radio Awards in its 12-year history—impressive by any metric. Press Start states that it adheres to the code of the Australian Journalists Association (a.k.a. the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance). However, I could not find anything in the way of membership. Until then, I had assumed that there was a formal list of members published. Maybe there is something I am missing? Perhaps it simply agrees to abide by the code. Anyway, the source has been cited by the media and at least one academic book. My biggest gripe is not having enough information that would lead me to a definitive conclusion, leading me to conclude that it is situational. If the authors open up more about their credentials and/or someone comes forth with solid evidence that Press Start follows the code of the Australian Journalists Association, I would definitely call it reliable. FreeMediaKid$ 03:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

AI articles allegedly on Kotaku

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

Apologies for starting a new post on this. Feel free to take down if it's felt not relevant, but the previous one just got archived as this came to light.

Patricia Hernandez, former Kotaku Editor in Chief has stated "Seems like AI stories are hitting Kotaku. No authors".

May be useful in any discussions regarding how to handle Kotaku sources going forward and the question was previously asked if we'd seen any and how they ID them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkeruTomoe (talk • contribs)

Based on the precedent with CNET, failure to mark AI-generated content would place them in firm unreliable territory. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with citing them as unreliable from this point in time onward. As is they've lost a lot of their more recognized writers, and setting this as a hard point would keep it from compromising any previous articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say we're most certainly at a point where Kotaku should be downgraded. In addition to losing many of the writers who got them a reliable classification in the first place, the general decline in editorial quality in the Gawker network post-G/O acquisition, and now the AI nonsense, they're at a point where they hardly publish any useful content. Almost all of the articles I've seen them publish in the past year or so are entirely based on random tweets/Reddit posts from gamers saying they think something is good/bad (examples: [20] [21] [22], the latter of which is on their front page right now) and look like they came from a Valnet churnalism site. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's fair to mark them as situational now; the balance is tilting towards anything good coming from them being the exception, rather than low-effort stuff like "quote Reddit posts" as Joe highlights. Anything AI-generated from any publication should be considered unreliable, arguably. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm more of the mindset of situational as well, whether it's limiting use for certain years or certain authors. I know they're not labeling AI articles...but they're still crediting specific authors on some content, right? Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they do still credit authors on non-AI content from a brief check. As for the cut-off, I would say 2023 is the safest to go with at the moment, since there hasn't been agreement to demote until now. I would update the "Notes and limitations" to something across the lines of:

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 [23]). Articles published before 2010 had comparatively weaker editorial standards, while there is consensus that content published by Kotaku from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content. It should be noted that this cut-off is not definitive; declines in editorial processes are gradual, and editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years.

JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that. Leaves enough wiggle room for fringe cases of any decent reporting that may crop up, while encouraging folks away from the trash.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if it goes far enough. Saying 'editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years', but also saying those same years are considered reliable.

I know that every big site will have detractors, but it seems that even in 2019 there were a lot of complaints from readers about much of their work aside from that of a couple of authors.

Just as an extra note, in the recently archived discussion about this, it was mentioned that a number of their editors were openly against AI content. From a quick check they're all still seemingly working there, so I think we can assume they don't have enough influence to block anything like this. Just mentioning if the topic of editor statements in these types of cases comes up again. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, that's why it says "this cut-off is not definitive". We've had editors questioning the site's reliable designation since at least 2016, and complaints accelerated in the aftermath of it falling under G/O in 2019. There simply hasn't been any actual agreement that Kotaku should be delisted until now, after it became blatantly obvious that G/O is turning the site into a useless content farm. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the "this cut-off is not definitive" is good enough to say "use your best judgement on if some 2022 article is decent" while also staving off any "well, VG/RS says pre-2023 Kotaku is fine so you can't question individual articles" arguments. --PresN 19:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed regarding it, but I do think some will interpret "this cut-off is not definitive" as "2021 - 2022 is probably okay", rather than "Editors have noted a decline of quality in some articles from 2016 - 2022 so additional scrutiny is advised if using sources from these years".

I don't think there's an easy answer though. Using best judgment will always be required, but it's never enough on its own. Otherwise it'd be acceptable to use unreliable sources like Niche Gamer as long as we're aware the information is correct. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd categorize everything 2019-2022 as situational in the manner of GameRant (i.e. potentially usable, but not to prove notability). It's clear that things fell off a cliff after the G/O Media situation. This would let it be used but without churnalism leading to false notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel there's no need to tighten the yoke that much further, particularly weak articles that pop up can be argued based on their own merits. I'm cautious on going harder with categorical statements because we all know there will be that one editor that treats it as an absolute rather than actually considering what a source is saying, Articles that are simply spitting out a reddit post or press release are going to be easy enough to weed out on their own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

My view is the opposite - "geeky" is a subjective definition, so it is incredibly difficult to outright state that a clickbait article is "too geeky" to count towards notability. It's easier to just say they are unusable for notability purposes even if it might catch some high quality articles in the crossfire. If said article is literally the only way a page will be notable, I am not sure it is a tremendous priority anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

And you just demonstrated exactly the problem I have with that mindset. We already have that mess happening with sources like Valnet, where editorial pieces are argued against not for the content of what they're saying or how much, but where they come from and somehow "Well, that can't count" and kneejerk reactions. I've seen those arguments made during AfDs and merge discussions, and by you yourself in fact. Notability on subjects, especially smaller ones like characters or similar that appear in media, should be indicated by what's being said in trusted sources that provides either meaningful critique or real world analysis of a subject and/or its impact. We should be encouraging editors to consider the quality of the article they're sourcing, and what statements they're citing from it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Subjective definitions aren't bad, they just might need discussion on a case-by-case basis. I think JoeBro's wording captures the appropriate level of caution. Consider the actual article at hand, not your mental conception of what a "Kotaku article" is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Count me as another person who supports the change in Kotaku's status, but still believes we need the grey area of editorial judgment. There is a bigger crisis of journalism happening as more good analysis is replaced with content farming, and I think we are getting to the point where "everything is situational". As a project, we should document our consensus that we are pro-journalism and anti-churnalism, just as soon as we can figure out how to describe the line between those two things. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

GamingOnLinux

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

A useful site to add to the Platform Specific list, this site covers games which are playable on Linux platforms, including the Steam Deck and SteamOS more generally. Third party coverage of this site at howtogeek.com describes it as "a great resource of news on all things related to gaming on Linux and SteamOS"

Wikipedia article Video games and Linux states "The GamingOnLinux website was launched on July 4, 2009, and eventually succeeded LinuxGames as the main source of news and commentary" and cites it 54 times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.211.87 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Could someone chime in on this? It seems that the site itself is a blog (which usually would count as a self published source and unreliable), but the owner seems to have hired some staff, so I'm unsure of its reliablity. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

SteamDB

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

SteamDB is an unofficial website that shows statistics of video games and applications on the namesake platform owned by Valve. I saw someone use it as a source on the Lethal Company article and decided to remove it and replace it with a GamesRadar source. Is it reliable for statistic-related statements in video game articles? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 18:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

100% unreliable. Self published source that scraps APIs of Steam data and makes interpolations from that. -- ferret (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Generally every info on SteamDB should be on Steam itself, so generally cite directly instead of a third-party. Although that's like citing Amazon as a source. IgelRM (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

SteamDB is unreliable. A lot of its sales data is based on estimates, many of which are wrong. Even Steam isn't a reliable source since anyone can write anything there. Even infoboxes tend to be wrong because they are forced to use Steam tags and categories, which may not strictly be accurate. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

ValNet and the situational section on here

While this isn't arguing if ValNet should or shouldn't be situational, I feel like it's a good idea to list the other sites that fall under its umbrella such as MovieWeb and Hardcore Gamer that may have some overlap with the project. In particular, Hardcore Gamer is still listed as reliable under its old publisher; apparently the purchase happened in May of this year.

I feel noting this is going to give editors at least a better idea of what sources they may find countered as they work on articles, especially given how much of Valnet dominates Google News' search results at this time. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. As a side note, I didn't even know that about Hardcore Gamer. I've always thought they were a decent source. I don't know if I've seen much of their recent output though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember if I evaluated MovieWeb or not since it wasn't a game focused site. But the news that Hardcore Gamer is under Valnet seems to have happened quietly with no one catching it before you realized it. I think we should evaluated Hardcore Gamer in general and then move it down. It's only had two discussions: The first basically said, paraphrased, "It's kinda shit with unclear editorial control but would be a nice reliable source" which makes no sense. The latter discussion had two !votes but little commentary. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

MovieWeb came up when researching another subject, and given the increase in video game adaptations it feels like a good idea to start at least considering some film sources to look at to boot.

While we're on this subject, I have to question too why CBR is being called *completely* unreliable. While I can understand in light of the recent mass firings, but prior to that editorial opinion pieces should still be usable should they not?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak to historically, but I saw them recently mentioned for an inaccurate article where they've used Anime News Network as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the source article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting. The primary source makes clear that this isn't the case.

The author profile of the writer says they're a 'longtime writer with experience in local news reporting, especially in the arts & entertainment section. He earned a Bachelor's Degree in Journalism from Sacramento State University...', so it does seem rather poor that this is the level we're getting on CBR from apparently accomplished writers. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Well I posted this on WT:VG, but posting it here too: according to Popverse, the switch to AI produced articles seems to have no actual grounds other than those claims? At the very least as of June of this year Valnet's claiming they have no plans to.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just since you're responding to the comment about the inaccurate article I linked, just to make clear, no claim was made that it was created by AI in my comment above. But yes, there's very little evidence that I've seen. 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 which does seem significant. But if it's true it's very doubtful they CBR would outfit admit it, which leaves it difficult to prove.

If true it could be a potential reason for the additional incorrect facts in the article if they're AI 'hallucinated' or it could be their apparent journalist writer didn't check his sources properly, got confused enough to add some extra things in somehow and it wasn't caught by an editor either. Neither really put CBR in a good light on fact checking. As said this is commenting on their recent activity and I can't speak to use of earlier sources. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

PC Guru

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

Heavy searching for journalism-related results about computer games occasionally yields content by PC Guru (ISSN 1217-6389), a Hungarian magazine founded in 1992. It seems to be well-known in Hungarian gaming media circles, but unfortunately, I could find little about it in other Hungarian sources and nothing about its reliability here or in the Hungarian Wikipedia, so I had to turn to a gold standard for journalist credentials that is LinkedIn. There, I got a lot more than I was asking for.

Starting with the editors-in-chief, Zsolt Sashegyi was editor-in-chief from 2002 to 2008, and has been the creative and marketing director for IGN since 2015 (has written articles). Ádám Székelyhidi was one for the online version from 2006 to 2011, then wrote for 576 KByte from 2012 to 2013, and has freelanced for IGN since 2015. Gabor Takacs, who contributed to or edited for a handful of publications such as Konzol and 576 KByte (as chief news editor), served as the chief editor from 2014 to 2015. Peter Smejkál, after being one from 2015 to 2018, became an editor and later a managing editor for Forbes a month later for more than two years (as opposed to a contributing writer, though he was one earlier). The current editor-in-chief, Gábor Böjtös, was one for Konzol for nearly one and a half years and the "top editor/founder" of IGN Hungary in the first half of 2015, and CHIP Hungary, a sister magazine, writes that its editor-in-chief as of 2019 created the hardware column for PC Guru at its 1992 founding, and also went on to become its chief editor. At the time of that article, the PC Guru writers also began to provide CHIP Hungary issues with articles about PC gaming.

As for writers who have not held that position, one was editor-in-chief for 576 KByte from 2008 to 2012 and again for IGN Hungary in 2015. Another was a game designer for Digital Reality, a former game developer that at one point became Hungary's largest game studio, from November 2001 to February 2003. One freelanced for IGN from June 2015 to December 2018, as did one for eight months and another for six months, the last of whom went on to write for Central Médiacsoport Zrt., a respectable publishing company, and thereafter for HWSW.

I learned surprisingly a lot about this long-running magazine from LinkedIn alone. I thought I might turn up little, but it turns out that PC Guru really is a recognizable magazine among gamers in Hungary, and at first glance a respectable one, too. I presume it counts as a reliable source. FreeMediaKid$ 09:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems reliable from what you've said. A physical magazine certainly denotes a level of investment and audience, it's long running, and it has quite a list of senior staff that seem to have held high positions at notable publications or went on to do so later, which speaks to their quality. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

GAMINGbible

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

A source that recently popped up on an article I monitor (List of video games considered the best) that I've also ran into during my source searching. It's owned by LADbible Group, which claims (I don't believe it) to be the largest youth publisher in the world. Some authors on GAMINGbible seem to have experience, such as the author of what is currently their front page article, Emma Flint, as seen by this, but them at others seem to only have real experience in freelance writing or sites that have questionable reliability.

So this looks okay on paper, but then here's the big thing: they have no editorial policy., and they have very few details placed on their about page. It is unclear who is charge of the site, all they have is generically named emails. Oh, and one very big thing: they allow user generated content. So, knowing this and the questionable experience of their writers, I would argue this site to be unreliable. If some authors that write for the site are more experienced and I simply didn't look far enough, then maybe situational (on a case-by-case basis) would work. NegativeMP1 18:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The -bible family of sites has to be among the worst content mills out there. Not only is their content quantity-over-quality, I have also frequently seen them make up some details to make stories more engaging. They have some reach, but mostly due to SEO and, of course, milling. I would mark it as flat-out unreliable, regerdless of author. IceWelder [✉] 00:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Concur that LadBible content is low quality and not worth citing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Same. Up there with the Valnets and the other churnalism websites... Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)