Navigating Wikipedia’s Politics For Video Game Sources
(Last Updated On: August 10, 2016)

In celebration of launching No Man’s Sky on PS4 this past Tuesday and the upcoming release for PC on Friday, one of Wikipedia’s resident editors over the gaming section, Masem, did an interview with Wikimedia talking about the importance of Wikipedia’s sourcing, their neutral points of view and their ever-growing video game project that collects, catalogs and details information about all sorts of interactive entertainment.

The article details how Wikipedia’s ranked list limits the referencing of false rumors and “problematic content” by utilizing a stringent sourcing rule set governed by the editors of Wikipedia.

Within the Wikimedia article, Masem explains…

“Wikipedia generally excels at covering contemporary topics, like video games, that are featured in online sources—it makes anyone that can access the web a good researcher in the area,” […] “the coverage of these pop topics tends to be some of the best up-to-date comprehensive coverage on the web.”

So how do they get the most “comprehensive coverage on the web”? Sources… and lots of them.

There’s actually an article on Wikipedia dedicated to the video game section’s sourcing methodology. It’s under the WikiProject Video Games section.

The section details that due to the nascence of video game journalism, reliability can be difficult to determine and therefore sourcing needs to be taken seriously. The lede helps establish what Wikipedia looks for when covering video game topics referenced from video game websites, stating…

“Because the fields of video game journalism, research, criticism, and commentary are relatively new compared to similar coverage of traditional media, traditional means of sourcing can be somewhat rare. In addition, the simultaneous development and expansion of Internet-based sources alongside the modern video-game scene has led to a much higher degree of exclusive online coverage than is the case with other media. These factors make the determination of reliable video-game sources a complex issue”

There are nine sections covering what to look for how to look for it when it comes to sourcing information from gaming websites. They also offer a comprehensive list of websites that are good for sourcing, discretionary, and those that are basically banned from being sourced due to being unreliable. The last one is the most interesting one.

Over the last two years we’ve really seen who can and cannot be trusted within the realm of video game media to provide readers with reliable, fact-based information. However, Wikipedia relies on a different form of scrutiny for determining who is and is not reliable.

For instance, websites with user-submitted content are labeled as being unreliable, this includes forums like GameFAQs and even NeoGAF, both of which are considered “Unreliable” on the grounds of “user-submitted” content.

News aggregators like N4G and VG Releases are also labeled as “Unreliable” due to user curated content.

Major corporate websites like Gamespot have exclamation points by them, indicating that their reliability is “situational” and may not be used in every circumstance. The reason for this is because sometimes Gamespot has freelance individuals providing content for the site. There’s a healthy debate that continues around Gamespot and its reliability due to the sometimes flimsy structure of its staffing.

Surprisingly, IGN is not in the same boat as Gamespot despite having a lot of user-generated content and also using freelancers frequently to cover big stories. IGN is considered to be a verified reliable source.

However, in one case a factually ambiguous statement was made in an IGN article regarding the Atari 5200 and there was no other fact-based statements to verify or contradict the statement, leading to an argument about the reliability of IGN’s claim. Masem chimed in stating that basically if a site is known for being reliable then the information is probably good…

“We need to be aware just because a source, known to be an [Reliable Source], printed something, does not make it a true fact (the only fact is, the [Reliable Source] printed that statement). Common sense, other sources, consensus, and the like can all say when a published statement is wrong, inappropriate, or misrepresents the non-opinion-based truth, and ergo this is a case where we would simply ignore one possibly-mistaken statement from a normally reliable source in favor of consistency with all other sources out there.”

Worse yet is that in one instance the biography information on IGN was called into question when one editor realized users could edit the biographies. This led a few other editors to chime in noting to treat the biographies no different than an IMDB source, which can also be edited by the community.

So why doesn’t IGN get put into the same boat with Gamespot if they’re not always reliable? Well, because as Masem pointed out… they’re “normally reliable”. So they get a pass.

And just for reference, IMDB is labeled as an unreliable source by Wikipedia.

Another interesting entry is VG 24/7. They’re considered reliable by Wikipedia, with a page from various editors supporting them due to Patrick Garrett’s pedigree and the rest of the upper staff at the site, with Teancum writing…

“The upper staff seem to be strong, and though there seem to be some unknowns, their articles look to be scrutinized by editorial staff – or at least I didn’t see any issue with it.”

For reference, VG 24/7 was the same site that wrote a preview for Uncharted 4 based on Uncharted 2’s gameplay, as reported by Game Revolution. VG 24/7’s publisher Patrick Garrett also published a hit-piece on Mark Kern on February 17th, 2015 and denied Mark Kern a right to respond.

However, credentials from VG 24/7’s staff seem to outweigh misinformation and hit-pieces; credentials and accreditation. The latter of which is how some sites in Wikipedia’s database make it in as reliable sources whether they have reliable information or not. For instance, Polygon is cited numerous times even though they parroted Kotaku’s misreport about Yooka-Laylee’s budget, but they’re still considered reliable, as reported by TheGG.

Additionally, some sites like legendary gaming outlet Blues News listed due to references from just about every major gaming website from Wikipedia’s reliable source list, thus it’s included as a reliable source. Just for reference, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

To Masem’s credit, however, it is mentioned that just because a bunch of reliable sources cite a site does not mean that the information is always reliable, writing

“As a caution, just being mentioned by other RS’s doesn’t necessarily mean its always a RS. It helps however, and certainly for [Blues New’]s case, there’s no question about it.”

Yet this same logic does not apply to DualShockers, who is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. The talk pages refer to DualShockers as “bloggy” and that “it seems to be” spam. In a separate page GameRanx and DualShockers are brought up again as recent as July, 2015, this time a few more editors chime in stating that GameRanx “looks unreliable”, and not that they actually found any legitimate complaints about the content other than that there’s no mention of “formal editorial oversight”.

For DualShockers they mention that sites like CNET, Time, VG 24/7 and Gamespot have cited them for some of their breaking news coverage, but editor CZAR shoots down DualShockers’ reliability, stating…

“It factors in, but in this case I’d say that DualShockers is being cited the same way they would cite a third party blog or critic. Professional credibility is usually a factor alongside (not in replacement of) editorial oversight. But I’ve said enough on this so others should chime in”

For as far as we know DualShockers has yet to lambast a game based on preview footage of a game released seven years ago. Nevertheless, in the eyes of Wikipedia credentials outweigh massive errors of misrepresentation.

But if citations aren’t enough to cover for credentials, why is The Jimquisition considered a situational source? According to CZAR, there’s no explanation given why Jim Sterling is more reliable than DualShockers, but he does say that he’s less reliable than sites with editorial oversight, writing on July 4th, 2015

“ As a one-man outlet, the Jimquisition is feasibly never the best source for statements of fact. Even then, I’d only use his opinion when it is notable, as in referenced by other outlets, but even then I’d cite that secondary source instead of Jimquisition directly… I’d also be hesitant to give him “self-published expert source” carte blanche and I think the guideline’s advice on that mirrors what I just said. So, situational.”

Other editors were definitely more willing to give The Jimquisition the “Reliable Source” badge, based on his work at Destructoid and The Escapist.

So then clearly a site like TechRaptor, with a dedicated staff, editorial oversight and an actual ethics policy would be eligible for being considered a reliable source? Right? They’ve even been cited by some of Wikipedia’s reliable source alums, so that warrants a badge of honor, yes? Apparently not.

According to Wikipedia editor Thibbs, back in October of 2014 he explains why TechRaptor isn’t eligible for the “Reliable Source” moniker, writing…

“Well I looked over the staff roll but I don’t see a lot in the way of credentials. There are some college students and some graduates and of course there are quite a few video game fans, but have any of them working within the industry or written for other RSes in the past? Just having a staff roll and an editorial policy are good signs, but they aren’t conclusive. Similarly, interviews with big-name interviewees is a good sign, but it’s far from determinative. One of the key questions is whether a putative RS has a “reputation for fact-checking an accuracy”. To look for a reputation we look to see what the other estalished RSes are saying about the source. On my own I see VG247 citing them here. Apart from this I find little or nothing.”

So having editorial policies, having college graduates, having oversight, and even having citations still isn’t enough for some sites, but if you’re Jim Sterling with no oversight whatsoever you’re a situational source. Is that correct?

In the case of Extra Credits, despite not having editorial oversight, despite being a YouTube outlet focused mainly on opinions, and despite not having an ethics policy, Wikipedia editor Thibbs actually confessed that he was on the fence for giving them the “Reliable Source” green check, writing…

“Regarding the reliability of this source for factual matters, I’m on the fence. Personally I rather like the show, but a lot of it is opinion-heavy and I’m not finding a lot of info on editorial policies or author credentials. It seems that there was some degree of industry connection from the outset in the form of James Portnow, and they’ve been associated with Edge, Escapist, Penny Arcade, and Screw Attack in the past, but beyond these groups I see few citations to them.

 

“So if we just look at the source devoid of context then I’d be dubious of its usability as an [Reliable Source], but since it has been used by several of our listed [Reliable Sources] in the 6 years since it was started, the question is whether they have gained sufficient reliability to be listed as an [Reliable Source]. I do see coverage from rockpapershotgun, bit-tech.net, polygon, gry-online, and several other listed RSes, which clearly shows they’re notable. So again I remain on teh fence about its factual reliability.”

Extra Credits is not listed as an “unreliable source” the way TechRaptor is, despite the fact that there’s no legitimate reasons given why they should be considered a reliable source other than the fact that some of the other sites that Wikipedia lists as “reliable” have cited them. In a way, it almost feels like that “citogenesis” meme that was floating around after Slate writer David Auerbach brought up how you can essentially turn a fabrication into a truth on Wikipedia by circulating citations of false information through Wikipedia’s reliable sources.

The citation conundrum reached fever pitch when Wikipedia’s editors directly began to brigade David Auerbach’s personal life, attempting to get him fired after he exposed a bureaucratic circlejerk of ideological aggrandizement by specific editors, as reported by Breitbart.

So where does that leave readers? Well, more than anything it’s imperative to check the sources. Wikipedia picking and choosing which sites are reliable is entirely dependent on the ideological preferences of the editors.

While niche sites Gematsu and Siliconera are considered reliable, Niche Gamer is not. While The Mary Sue is considered reliable on a situational basis, OnRPG is not. While Vox-owned SBNation is considered reliable, the home of EVO, Shoryuken, is not. While Polygon is considered reliable, Eventhubs is not. And while Kotaku is considered situational for its blog-tier content, Blistered Thumbs was considered unreliable simply because it was a sub-division of ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.

Ultimately, if you want to be considered a “Reliable Source” for your gaming coverage by Wikipedia, you have to meet the following criteria:

• You need to have an established staff of writers who have contributed to Wikipedia’s already established pool of “Reliable Sources”.

• You need to have editorial oversight unless you’re really, really popular, like Jim Sterling.

• You need to have an ethics policy, unless you’re already producing content cited by Wikipedia’s “Reliable Sources”.

• You can’t be a solo act unless you’re also really, really popular (like Jim Sterling), or the Wikipedia editors like your content.

• You can’t rely on user-submitted content unless you have enough reliable citations from Wikipedia’s “Reliable Sources” to outweigh user-submitted content.

• You need to be cited frequently, but only by sources recognized as “Reliable Sources” by Wikipedia’s editors.

• You can’t be a news aggregator.

• You can be a review aggregator.

• You can’t be a blogger, unless you write about things that Wikipedia editors agree with, then you can be used as a reliable source under situational circumstances.

• Most importantly, if there is “un-discussed determinations” on your site or “Wikipedia Silence” from editors, then it’s likely that your site is “unreliable”.

(Main image courtesy of Ashion)

About

Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years covering video games, technology and digital trends within the electronics entertainment space. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Need to get in touch? Try the Contact Page.

  • Pingback: Wikipedia Admins Filibuster Crash Override Network Page To Bury Chat Leaks | One Angry Gamer()

  • C G Saturation

    Wikipedia has long been plagued by bullshit, perpetrated by both its admins and its editors. Heard of so many cases where assholes kept filling Wikipedia with lies, and Wikipedia kept defending those lies at any cost.

    In college, they always told us to never use Wikipedia as a source, but only as a base point of reference.

  • durka durka

    “Yet this same logic does not apply to DualShockers, who is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. ”

    Why would anyone consider that sony propagandist guiseppe nelva a reliable source is beyond me most of what he publishes are rumors who turn out ot be false.

    • Mr.Towel

      On that basis, every specialized press is unreliable…

  • Alistair

    Im gonna be honest with you, Im thinking what the Hell Billy saying Wiki is a OK Because of what Wiki-Leaks has uncovered.

    Till i scroll down and saw that Femmist SJW Antia Mug shot then and only then i know where this was heading, in a pile of mess that what.

    So i started to see faults with Wiki it is a SJWs Cuckfest, Not useing unbais user content the gamers that actually play games and not Antia that doesn’t.

    Patrick garret is Reliable too eh, Article that use her mugshot saying to DEVs do not blame the press for your sexist extremist in games woes. Utter BS It is of them that devs have to knottowing to them and end up censoring their games.

    Then i saw that other SJW Cuck jim sterling is more Reliable then user content and other better sites out there, then it clear as day what they trying to push later down the article, confirms my fears tech rap i just started visted few days ago is spot on. Unlike Kotaku.

    Cant say much with N4G as i hasn’t vist it for ages, other sites mention i cant comment.

    But here the hightlight for Me is, Noooooooooooo not Niche Gamer despite winning a award that right winning a award, a anti-censorship too well you have to be anti-censorship if you going to talk about latest ecchi news of upcoming games. As Not Reliable “Pow” Right there confirm it what they pushing.

    But were billy and one angry gamer didnt get a mention you are Reliable in my eyes further proves it that wiki is turning into a SJW cesspool.

    • Lewd Gamer isn’t on the list (yet) and neither is One Angry Gamer. I would actually prefer if we never make it on there because it would be some BS excuse why the site isn’t reliable. But the reason why Niche Gamer isn’t considered reliable is because they feel the owner is just some guy who made a site. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the content, the quality of the reporting, the fact checking, the information or the consistency of their content. Nope… they just don’t like Brandon.

      • C G Saturation

        I’m sure the “unreliable” list only consists of sites they consider a threat (eg. already has a sizable userbase) and want to discredit them. Smaller sites like this one, they’d try to sweep under the rug, hoping that people will never find them of their own volition.

  • giygas

    There’s a reason schools prohibit students from citing Wikipedia. It has no credibility. In fact, almost everyone I’ve ever personally talked to about Wikipedia had warned me not to trust what I read on that site. And that was long before it became apparent that the site is dominated by corrupt admins.

    Fun read with lots of useful links:
    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/

  • hurin

    Unreliable just means they don’t dehumanize Gamers as evil woman haters.

  • So basically, SJWs and feminists are the ones who are “reliable”.

    Absolutely fucking pathetic.

    • Alistair

      Im more shocked that one angry gamer is not on that list, i use to respect wiki but No more.

      I see you over at niche gamer that guy has work his butt off and even got a top reward for it. By the fact it not reliable is because of connection with dirty perv ecchi games that cucks hate.

      In other words non-Niche games sites gets a mention.

      • One Angry Gamer has very good writing, operates on facts, logic and reason and does not push the SJW-feminist political agenda so of course it won’t be on the list.

        NicheGamer is also a fair and unbiased site, and like you say associates itself with the niche titles very often, for example the sexually suggestive ecchi type Japanese games and does not paint them in a negative light. Despite all of NG’s good and hard work, let’s face it, Wikipedia have probably dismissed NG purely because of their mascot/logo.

        As for LewdGamer, despite that site being fair, unbiased and very informative, the retards at Wikipedia will have dismissed LG purely because of the types of games they cover. Because you know, SJWs and feminists DESPISE that stuff (except when it’s Yaoi and fanservice aimed towards females of course, then SJWs have no problems with that).

        The whole Wikipedia organisation absolutely reeks of SJWs & feminists. And this stench is getting worse every day. It really is unbelievable on how SJWs have managed to infest and take over virtually all of the major companies and organisations.

        • C G Saturation

          Well, it’s hardly surprising. People looking to manipulate and hide the facts go straight for the most popular and obvious sites first. That’s why all the major sites are full of shit now. They’ve all been hijacked by assholes. It’s how things work, can’t do much about it.

          Doesn’t help that most people don’t care about facts, they just want to believe what they want to believe, which is also often defined by the same assholes via the media, so it’s very much a hugbox of delusions.

          • Yeah. This is basically the issue of the brain-dead drones of society (normies and sheeple) swallowing every drop of shit the mainstream media feeds them.

            Which is one of the main proponents that is causing this leftist-PC crap.

            Whatever mainstream media reports is what society will be. Messed up times indeed man.

  • Parrikle

    Wikipedia’s core problem, which affects everything it does, is that there is not possible to rely on the expertise of Wikipedia’s contributors. A traditional encyclopaedia can rely on only hiring experts in the fields, but Wikipedia allows anyone to edit. It needs another mechanism to ensure a degree of accuracy. Hence the reliance on sources – if you can trust the person who added it to Wikipedia, at least we can trust the source they got it from.

    Then, of course, the problem moves to whether or not you can trust the source, which is made worse because anyone can post an opinion on the internet. It used to be more difficult – newspapers, journals and books would post claims only after some degree of editorial oversight and fact checking, and the editors and publishers would act as gatekeepers.

    Wikipedia relies on three basic principles – does it have professional/skilled editorial oversight; is the author a recognised expert on the subject, and does it have a history of reliability. Jim Sterling is going to sneak in as a recognised expert, as do the (very) occasional blogger. IMDB is going to drop off as using user submitted content with no editorial oversight. Clear cut cases are easy, less clear cut ones are trickier, and they’ll make mistakes, but the process isn’t an unreasonable one.

    • Clear cut cases are easy, less clear cut ones are trickier, and they’ll
      make mistakes, but the process isn’t an unreasonable one.

      Actually it is unreasonable. They have a no original research policy and a policy against editors doing their own investigations, but what they should have is fact-checking oversight. At the end of the day, they’re basically saying they’re relying on outlets who have editorial fact-checking and that that’s it. Why do they not have or allow editors to fact check the source?

      Requiring a “Reliable Source” to practice something even they don’t employ is absolutely backwards. That’s precisely why David Auerbach took a lot of them to task because you can cite misinformation on Wikipedia’s attribution of a “Reliable Source” and Wikipedia, without question, will cite that information if enough “Reliable Sources” reprint that misinformation.

      They even almost ate themselves when a so-called “Reliable Source” misprinted information about their arbitration process, to which they were dumbfounded as to what to do because citing it would be factually inaccurate (and they all knew as much) but it was coming from a “Reliable Source”. They eventually opted to scrub the whole scenario because of how silly it all was.

      • Parrikle

        > They have a no original research policy and a policy against editors doing their own investigations,

        The original research policy concerns what goes into an article – you can’t add your own theories. However, that doesn’t (and shouldn’t) restrict looking into whether or not a given source is reliable.

        > Why do they not have or allow editors to fact check the source?

        Anyone can fact check the source by raising concerns with it on the discussion pages. If the source is deemed to be incorrect, a case can be made for regarding it as unreliable.

        > You can cite misinformation on Wikipedia’s attribution of a “Reliable Source” and Wikipedia, without question, will cite that information if enough “Reliable Sources” reprint that misinformation.

        Yes, that remains a core problem. You can make a case, per above, that the information is incorrect and needs to be left out, but when faced with multiple generally reliable sources making the claim, that can be a difficult argument to make.

        Wikipedia is trying to fix the fundamental flaw of allowing anonymous editors of unknown levels of expertise develop articles. The focus on sources covers for that, but it will create other problems. However, Wikipedia is fundamentally a project based around crowd sourced content, and if they move away from that it might still be an interesting project, but it won’t be Wikipedia. And, based on what happened with Nupedia and later Citizendium, it is far less likely to succeed.

        • Anyone can fact check the source by raising concerns with it on the discussion pages. If the source is deemed to be incorrect, a case can be made for regarding it as unreliable.

          Then how do you have an entire article like #GamerGate pointing to “Reliable Sources” where simple things can be easily debunked given that all those sources based their information on hearsay and no one called out any of it? How is that even possible?

          The one situation where the developer had some misinfo spread around about him and he couldn’t fix it because he wasn’t quoted by any “Reliable Sources” was just asinine.

          Wikipedia is trying to fix the fundamental flaw of allowing anonymous editors of unknown levels of expertise develop articles. The focus on sources covers for that, but it will create other problems.

          Anonymous editors? Unknown levels of expertise? That’s missing the forest for the trees. The issue is fact checking the sources. I don’t care if you’re the son of Satan or the President of the United Freaking States of America, if you make an entry pointing to a source containing misinformation, the source needs to be fact checked by fellow Wikipedia editors before it can be given the green light. To me that would fix a lot of problems.

          User curation is not the issue, fact checking the sources is the issue.

          • Parrikle

            Then how do you have an entire article like #GamerGate pointing to “Reliable Sources” where simple things can be easily debunked given that all those sources based their information on hearsay and no one called out any of it? How is that even possible?

            If someone wants to make a case that those sources are unreliable because they based their claims on hearsay, they can. My guess is that it will be a hard case to make, but I don’t know what specific claims you are addressing.

            The one situation where the developer had some misinfo spread around about him and he couldn’t fix it because he wasn’t quoted by any “Reliable Sources” was just asinine.

            Yes, that sounds asinine. In the past I’ve had success in removing content on the grounds that the sources got it wrong, but you need to make a good case if there are a lot of sources repeating the claim.

            if you make an entry pointing to a source containing misinformation, the source needs to be fact checked by fellow Wikipedia editors before it can be given the green light.

            To know that the source is wrong in order to require it to be green lit would, I guess, require fact checking first. So the only way this is possible is if every claim entered into Wikipedia is fact checked first. As we can’t rely on the expertise of the fact checkers, or the availability of primary data to compare against, the only two things they could determine is “incorrect” and “not proven to be incorrect”, so the reliability of a green light system would be questionable – it could possibly pick up some errors in sources, but would have no hope of picking up the vast majority.

          • If someone wants to make a case that those sources are unreliable because they based their claims on hearsay, they can. My guess is that
            it will be a hard case to make, but I don’t know what specific claims you are addressing.

            There was a 12 or 13 page disquisition on all of the factually incorrect claims cited in the articles used in the #GG piece on Wikipedia, but I haven’t had time to go back over to see how many of those citations were fixed in the Wikipedia article (all of them were from prominent and renown websites).

            you need to make a good case if there are a lot of sources repeating the claim.

            That’s one of those issues that I couldn’t agree with Auerbach more on, especially regarding the whole citogenesis. I would love to see what would happen if a bunch of reliable sources stated something ridiculous like “The sky is actually neon violet” and Wikipedia was forced to go by that standard even if they could look outside and see that that was false.

            So the only way this is possible is if every claim entered into Wikipedia is fact checked first. As we can’t rely on the expertise of the fact checkers, or the availability of primary data to compare against, the only two things they could determine is “incorrect” and “not proven to be incorrect”,

            This is pretty easy for most cases because if they’re citing a primary source then you know firsthand that that’s correct. Irrefutable, fact-based news makes it a simple process.

            it could possibly pick up some errors in sources, but would have no hope of picking up the vast majority.

            There really is no such thing as a perfect solution, and that’s just always going to be a problem in any of these cases. However, it sure beats someone pointing to a supposedly “Reliable Source” and quoting them as fact just because the source says it’s true. Thankfully, some of the editors did step up and step in and fact check the Mary Sue when they tried to pass it off based on hearsay that Samus was transgender.

          • Parrikle

            I would love to see what would happen if a bunch of reliable sources stated something ridiculous like “The sky is actually neon violet” and Wikipedia was forced to go by that standard even if they could look outside and see that that was false.

            Something like that would be easily handled. Clear incorrect facts can be discounted. What is a problem is facts which aren’t easily disproven so that there remains doubt as to which is correct.

            This is pretty easy for most cases because if they’re citing a primary source then you know firsthand that that’s correct. Irrefutable, fact-based news makes it a simple process.

            I tend to find that a problem. Sources – even good ones – can cherry pick from primary sources, or primary sources are not provided. It is relatively rare when a random editor would have the ability to fact check something published without direct access to and knowledge of the original sources they are drawing on.

          • C G Saturation

            They’re trying to claim Samus is transgender now? What the hell, that’s bullshit. There’s no way Nintendo would even go anywhere near that topic.

          • Brianna Wu did an article for The Mary Sue in an attempt to get others to cite the story and essentially brute force the lore that Samus is trans.

            Someone attempted to make the edit into the Wikipedia entry for Samus/Metroid since The Mary Sue is considered reliable in “situational circumstances”. Thankfully, one of the long-time editors who squat on the Samus/Metroid page(s) wasn’t having any of it because there was nothing to source the claim. They squelched it before other sites started repeating The Mary Sue. Of course, had the plan worked and enough of Wikipedia’s “Reliable Sources” cited Wu’s article, then yeah… according to Wikipedia Samus could have been trans.

      • C G Saturation

        I heard BBC just got chewed out for regurgitating press releases with zero fact checking, and many people still worship BBC for its supposed “journalistic integrity” (haha, bullshit) so that probably gives you an idea of how screwed up everyone else is.

    • scemar

      as if “experts” had been a reliable gatekeeping mechanism that saved other fields from being overrun by stupidity, ignorance and politics

      • C G Saturation

        “Experts”, aka paid by the highest bidder to support their cause. That’s how the world sure seems to work nowadays. If you don’t parrot what big business likes, you can kiss your career (and probably life) goodbye.

        It boggles my mind that all those selfish assholes don’t care how their actions will inevitably destroy humanity in the long run. All they care about is getting even more filthy rich, so they can buy that 20th giant mansion and 1000th super sports car.

  • scemar

    personally, I believe wikipedia has without a doubt, failed gamers

    and in fact it has failed any pretense of truthfulness, objectivity or interest in actually having any morals but that’s beyond the point

    if you are into games and need info, wikipedia is the last place for you

    all the random different wikias or fan faqs or imageboards out there host much better content

  • What horrific bull$#!+ Wikipedia has become.

    I hope the site crashes and burns. Hard.

  • chaoguy

    Have you got in contact with any of those people that are considered “unreliable” for their two cents on this? Now it’s laid out to them, they might have something to say.
    Though I imagine those that are deemed “reliable” won’t want to talk to you. Just a hunch.

    Great work!

    • I can definitely reach out to some of these sites to see what they have to say about it. Some of the criticisms are kind of nonsensical, like in Niche Gamer’s case, they just said that it’s a guy who is running a site for two years and therefore can’t be deemed reliable. How exactly do you fix that?

      • chaoguy

        Yes, I’d definitely like to see follow-up interviews with some of these people.
        And despite my prior cynicism, you should try to get in contact with Wikipedia for clarity. If they do give a statement, it could be interesting to analyze.

      • C G Saturation

        Wikipedia is a bunch of assholes making up bullshit for many years, and they have no intention of fixing that.

        • It’s sad but that seems to be the truth.