Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Tech4Gamers

Find video game sources: "Tech4Gamers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Tech4Gamers is a publication dedicated to gaming and PC hardware, backed by a team of professionals with years of experience in the field. [1] Details about their staff members: [2] and editorial policy: [3] Kazama16 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclinded to believe this to be a reliable source. They appear to have a qualified team and are open and clear with their editorial policies. Additionally, they are supported by WP:USEBYOTHERS as they have been used by websites such as IGN as seen here. Looking through the articles on their main page, the quality of the articles appear relatively on-par with other sources we deem reliable here. Captain Galaxy 03:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider them reliable per Galaxy's comment. I'm also satisfied by their staff team, about page, and editorial guidelines. I don't see how they don't meet the standards. λ NegativeMP1 20:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MoeGamer

Find video game sources: "MoeGamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Ran across this source recently, and after doing some digging found there was a discussion here in the past. While I gather despite the author's excessive pedigree, he is basically a self-published source. However at the same time I'd like to suggest that with those credentials, he could be a viable source for his editorial opinion on certain subjects to help establish notability (i.e. he's written pretty extensively on a lot of fictional characters, and even some in the vtubing field). I think this could be a good source for helping establish WP:THREE and veering a bit more away from the usual Valnet drivel. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Situational~~ly reliable~~. Considering the author's pedigree and his coverage of topics often overlooked by mainstream English-language sources, I think this site should qualify as an WP:EXPERTSPS. ~~No judgment as yet as to whether it should be considered as contributing to demonstrating notability~~, but it should absolutely be permissible to flesh out articles on topics that have had their notability already soundly established by other sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After further discussion below, I'm inclined to reinforce my opinion that MoeGamer is only situationally usable for articles on topics that are already proven to be notable, and should not count towards notability. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable. I feel comfortable that this author is a trustworthy source, as he has significant credentials with a large number of reliable sources. This suggests to me that he does not have issues with factual accuracy issues or other problems. Now, it's not the greatest source in the world since it is a SME instead of a site with an editorial department, but I think there can be gradients of notable versus non-notable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Situational at best~~. He was fired from USgamer and burned a lot of bridges on the way out. I recall he had a lot of unkind things to say when USgamer was shutting down, but he appears to have deleted his Twitter and it wasn't archived. He hasn't had an industry job since 2014. I find that the results of the previous discussion still hold true: it's essentially a self-published blog/Wordpress site. I don't see a lot of WP:USEBYOTHERS to elevate it above consideration at that level. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's one sided of course but some of his comments on USGamer are in this article: https://moegamer.net/2024/03/22/the-enshittification-of-the-video-games-press/ DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable per DarkeruTomoe's findings below and at here. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find ethics policy but I see a request for game codes in the sidebar: Review copies of games are gratefully accepted! Get in touch if you'd like to submit your title for consideration. There's some alarming points raised by other participants – i.e., fired by his last employer and no industry role in 9 years – that make it challenging for me to agree with a Situational vote. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did some digging and I can't find a confirmation on why he was let go, however VG247 still lists him as a contributor and he was writing for them up until 2021 (of note, VG247 inherited USGamer's content, so if there was particularly significant bad blood it would be strange for them to bring him back on). He has also worked at RiceDigital as an editor, a website we had discussed here not too long ago as situational depending on the author's credentials. So has remained in the industry at least in the last few years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit rough to see that the 2021 contribution was a guide for a little-known title rather than actual journalism, but makes me feel a bit better. Still have concerns about the editorial policy but I don't know this reporter so wanted to comment rather than vote. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The VG247 articles attributed to Davison post-2014 appear to be miscategorized/mislabeled articles from the USgamer migration. For example, the Saints Row IV review is actually by Mike Williams, originally posted on August 15, 2013. The Steins;Gate guide is misdated; the guide was originally published on April 24, 2014. Why the Xbox Failed in Japan is actually by Wesley Yin-Poole, published on Eurogamer on December 14, 2012. I did a few more spot checks and they're all either misattributed to him or have the wrong date entered. He does not actually appear to have done any work for VG247. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers @Kung Fu Man @Cukie Gherkin since you all appear to be taking his VG247 contributor page at face value in the discussion below. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Him requesting game codes isn't of much concern to me; that seems pretty normal for independent games writers trying to get eyeballs on their work. I would have to see some direct confirmation of his specific grievance with USGamer and the reasons why they dropped him to consider downgrading my vote. Even if it's true, I'd probably only change my vote to situationally useful only for opinions with the additional stipulation that he doesn't count for notability, unless the exact details of the situation appear to egregiously disqualify him. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting game codes is fine. Having that on the page while not indicating if they accept money in exchange for reviews? Not fine. That's why I'm hesitant to agree with "Situational" for notability. In general, I have concerns about any publication without editorial or ethics guidelines. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the question of bias by journalists for a game they got for free or a company they're looking to appease is at all unusual in this industry. Perhaps the most notable games journalist, Jeff Gerstmann, was fired for giving a bad review during a period where GameSpot's notability was never put into question. I don't think that advertising that you accept review codes or whatever such thing is indicative of anything worse than standard industry practice. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do they print retractions for errors? Do they have editorial oversight to avoid plagiarism? If I email this outlet and offer them £10k to review my game, will they do it? You cannot answer any of these questions because the publication does not give them. To repeat: "I accept game codes" is not the problem. Not having an answer to "Do you accept bribes?" can signify a problem. It's a blog with no editorial oversight. He's barely written 3 articles in 5 years and one was a guide, which is not an SME. You responded to a comment I didn't write. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I could get that, I do think at the same time if someone is this involved in the industry one would assume their reputation would not be something they'd want to discard so willingly. I understand being wary of a source (and yes I get I'm going to look at said source more favorably given I'm suggesting it), but surely you can understand that can come across as an excessive level of scrutiny...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a weird hypothetical based on nothing, in opposition to cause to believe there's no ethical concerns. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor 1: "This guy was fired from his last role and has not had a perm role in years" Editor 2: "To support notability, it'd make me feel better if they had an ethics policy, like saying they don't accept pay-for-reviews" Editor 3: "Weird hypotheticals based on nothing" — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You posted ~4 reviews and 1 guide published over a 5-year period. Of all the articles listed at the bio Cukie Gherkin linked, none were published beyond 2020. When you posted these, I said it made me feel a little better. It didn't make me feel much better because Axel said he was fired from last journalist role. All I did was ask follow-up questions about editorial policy. If that's read as excessive scrutiny, I don't know what to tell you. I won't opine any further on this; what a disheartening chain. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anything I said there requires that sort of reaction. I simply pointed out it felt weird to assume the worst of a writer that has worked for this many outlets (one of the most recent in an editorial capacity) and has a reputation to preserve, let alone the valid concerns Axem brought up seemed dispelled by his continued work on VG247 after USGamer's downfall.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused, because it honestly feels like you're fighting shadows right now. I'm responding to your points and having a disagreement with what you are saying, that's the only thing happening. As far as the weird hypothetical goes, the hypothetical I referred to was that he may take money to give positive review scores, not concerns about him in general. There's simply no evidence that's something he ever did in his career, and no evidence that the reason he was fired had anything to do with that. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles and guides from post-2014 are all misattributed or misdated. See my comment above. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following this comment from Axel, Unreliable. The subject has published 4 articles in 6 years and has not held a journalism role since fired from USgamer. The barrier to be an "SME" is not that high, but this does not meet it. The publication's lack of editorial standards or policies makes this a blog of no pedigree. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sceptical of the source myself, I can't think of many sources including those accepted as reliable here who directly state "We don't accept bribes or money for reviews". DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Situationally reliable - Only because Pete Davison not only worked on USgamer and Rice Digital, but he also worked on magazines dedicated to Atari platforms decades ago, giving MoeGamer a bit of a leg to stand on. (P.S. The Atari magazine was Page 6/New Atari User. He also worked for PC Zone and Official Nintendo Magazine). Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Situational - Whilst I am incline to agree with Axem, I do believe that the experience and history on display here as mentioned by Roberth above qualifies this source as usable for this WikiProject. Captain Galaxy 03:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same as The Jimquisition, in the vein of WP:RSOPINION: fine for attributed opinions, shouldn't be cited for facts or used to demonstrate notability. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 21:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheJoebro64: Why wouldn't it be able to count for notability? Like it Valnet it's because they often take an "anything goes" approach or churnalism. And with Sterling...well a lot of it is stuff interwoven with her own opinion and stuff she's presenting as facts. But couldn't this constitute sigcov for a potential WP:THREE if it's covering individual items?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Most of the site seems to be opinionated blogging and it's a one-man operation with seemingly no editorial oversight, which gives me pause. Davison's credentials are decent, so I don't think it should be marked as blanket unreliable, but I think it'd set a bad precedent to declare the personal blog of a writer who hasn't done major RS writing in several years on the same level as stuff like VGC and Time Extension—especially considering that he apparently left his last major position at an RS under questionable circumstances. ~~Not to mention that people will complain that we don't consider Sterling's drivel fully reliable.~~ JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 02:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable

While the author has some history in the area, it's essentially his personal website with no editorial oversight or policies.

I'm also sceptical on the ethics side due to his role at Rice Digital in positively covering PQube games (PQube's Head of Publishing is the founder of Rice Digital). This was discussed before.

I can't find any significant UseByOthers of the website.

He has some good work, especially the articles on Atelier which are linked on their Wikipedia pages, but alongside the concerns above I'm not seeing many arguments to say it's reliable other than he used to write for places considered reliable long ago and even then he seemingly got fired from one of them. These days he writes manuals and stuff for Evercade if his Youtube channel's about is up to date. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely disqualifying. Changed my stance above. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ungeek

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

I found this website while looking for new sources to incorporate into Mobile Suit Gundam GQuuuuuuX and upon scrutinizing it further decided to bring the discussion here rather than to the Anime WikiProject page since video game coverage seems to be their bread and butter.

They appear to have some helpful industry connections and have published a few interviews ([4], [5], [6]) and their reviews ([7], [8]) seem to be reasonably well written (or at least, not written by LLMs). However, they don't seem to have much of an editorial policy to speak of, with their about page instead saying that they are "the fastest-growing premier geek blog based in the Philippines" and have "worked with various brands as well in helping them expand their reach". Their chief editor, Rob Yatco, states that in his bio that he is a "Freelance Marketer and Strategist by Trade". His LinkedIn profile backs this up, suggesting his previous experience is mostly in PR duties for various companies. Another editor, Nicolo Manaloto (who's apparently been interviewed about his work at the site here), is a staff writer at Epicstream (itself a site of unclear reliability), where his bio claims that he has been cited by Forbes (obviously doesn't count for much without knowing the context) and IGN.

Given all this, I think I'd personally lean situational and would only use them cautiously if there weren't a lot of other options, but wouldn't cite them for anything that could be contentious. I'd like to hear other opinions, though. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they pass WP:USEDBYOTHERS. But I don't know how well they pass other things we expect from an RS... λ NegativeMP1 16:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gamurs Network pivot to slop/guides

Layoffs and pivot to slop per Aftermath report. Escapist seems to be all guides now. Same with Destructoid. Siliconera still has content, but it looks like the All Jenni Lada show (I think she is a solid writer FWIW). Dot Esports is guide city. Upcomer hasn't posted since September 2024. Prima is all guides, but I guess that makes sense for them??? A lot of similar names pop up across all the different sites, which jibes with the Aftermath report, "Former staff also tell us that, despite laying off successive waves of writers throughout 2025, Gamurs has been actively trying to recruit writers from regions like India, the Philippines and the Balkans. Former staff speculated this could be because these workers can be paid less than writers from the US or United Kingdom." Anyway, I doubt anyone here has any illusions about citing any of this stuff as the vast majority of it is unusable on its face. Just posting for completeness' sake. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think Siliconera has gotten bad enough for a downgrade on status, but there definitely has been a drop in quality. I use them less simply because they publish less usable stuff. They used to cover so much about new game announcements and previews that were great for fleshing out articles. Now it's largely either filler junk like this or the more nerdy non-gaming stuff Kotaku pivoted to long ago. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a bottoming-out of Destructoid yet, as the Aftermath article states, it looks like they got some Dotesports editors, which while not the best, aren't necessary slop; they are still generating reviews and news about game updates. but that's one to keep on the list to watch. Masem (t) 16:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like with this steady decline we might consider writing a guide on what to avoid from sites when trying to establish notability for subjects, so people can look for the wheat in the chaff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we should document and promote best practices. Some examples from other topic domains: Category:Wikipedia reliable source guides. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gamezebo publishing unlabeled advertisements

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

This site is listed under "reliable sources" but it appears to be publishing unlabeled sponsored news: https://www.gamezebo.com/news/play-officially-licensed-anime-games-on-g123-with-no-registration-or-download-needed/

Note that very similar promotional articles were published on the same day in two other publications, both of which are listed as "friends" of Gamezebo at the bottom of the website: [9] [10]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly unsure what made people see it as a reliable source in the first place. The about page is really weak, there's no editorial policy, no staff page, and from a couple author profiles, I see either no biography or a lack of credentials. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming they were reliable for a while but went downhill in the past few years. Gamezebo was acquired in 2016, although it's unclear at what point quality dropped. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was last discussed in 2009. A lot can happen in 15 years. Apparently it was acquired by iWin in 2016, a mobile/casual game developer. As this is the domain that Gamezebo specializes in, I feel safe in saying everything after the acquisition is owned media and unreliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say maybe it could be usable before the iWin acquisition...but even looking at it's 2015 version there's next to nothing indicating editorial policy or anything?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know I used Gamezebo in my early days on Wikipedia, but it doesn't look like I participated in the past discussions linked about it, so I can't recall my old reasons. It feels like I haven't used it in quite some time, maybe because they've been cranking out stuff like this in more recent years. Definitely support downgrading for the last decade since the acquisition at least. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff on this author's tagline is deeply promotional and probably an unlabeled advertisement. [11], [12], [13], [14].

Browsing the Internet Archive history here, it looks like the old real content trailed off ~late 2018, and they just put out guides for a while. At some point in late 2022, at least by September, they launched a redesign and started putting out a lot of content. Their older stuff isn't bad. The new stuff is of remarkably low quality. If I were to use quality as an indicator of when editorial standards fell off the cliff, it's 2018. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PC Data

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

Although now defunct this source has been used many times throughout the years (I'm using it myself) so I'm surpised it hasn't been discussed here. I think it should be added reliable defunct sites. IGN [15], Computer Games Magazine [16], etc have used this site before. Timur9008 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DualShockers

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

DualShockers was previously listed as unreliable but in 2022 was moved to situational. I wanted to revisit that assessment because a recent article of theirs includes a completely-fabricated quote.

The article: https://www.dualshockers.com/bungies-marathon-is-plastered-with-stolen-art-artist-says/ (archived, in case they remove it or edit it: https://web.archive.org/web/20250515233401/https://www.dualshockers.com/bungies-marathon-is-plastered-with-stolen-art-artist-says/)

Confirmation of fabrication: https://x.com/4nt1r34l/status/1923156749726433587

Forgive me if I'm not doing this the right way, I haven't participated in a discussion on this part of WP before, but as soon as I saw this pop up I felt obligated to come here and check how WP treated this as a source. If this still qualifies it as situational, I apologize for wasting time, but it seems pretty significant to completely fabricate a quote, even once, and I feel as though it should be re-listed as unreliable. SlyAceZeta (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm down with moving DualShockers to unreliable now...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. λ NegativeMP1 00:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that this source should be unreliable. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that's shitty. Unreliable as all hell. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked out the author of the piece, and... hum. [17] [18] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's not only looking like this guy doesn't exist, he's using multiple accounts on there and pretending to be separate people. If you reverse image search his profile pic from Dualshockers, it links to Anthony Ngugi on a site called TopSpeed that's similar to Dualshockers in layout...and who uses a stock image profile pic there now too.

Antony Ngugi is also an 'author' on Dualshockers. This is weird.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't like how this is looking. Now I wonder if other Valnet sources are doing similar things... wouldn't exactly surprise me. λ NegativeMP1 15:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible but I wouldn't assume it outright. Talking with Cukie last night she noticed Dualshockers has very different hiring practices than, say, theGamer.

An aside, DualShockers deleted the original article outright: no retraction or clarification given.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to downgrading. There wasn't even really the strongest support for situational in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have given them credit if they issued a correction, but downright removing the article when called out for factual inaccuracy is grounds for unreliable. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is disappointing. They should probably be moved to unreliable. If someone wanted to make the case for an exception for some older content, I am open to that discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could *possibly* see it in the case of editors we can actually confirm, but even with interview content I feel it could be questionable to cite them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they completely fabricated a quote in my opinion should make them completely unusable even for interviews. λ NegativeMP1 19:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably would keep some time frames within the "situational" area, particularly if it's a sort of opinion piece and not quoting anybody, and also particularly if an article's author has assessed as credible/reliable on an individual basis, but yes it is very disappointing to see a fake quote being used here. Soulbust (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is this is the second time they've fabricated information, and we have no time frame for when things started going downhill or if perhaps they always were. The fact they clearly are behaving in an unethical manner and that two accounts on there are not real people (Ngugi to boot is not listed as a contributor, 'they' are a staff writer since 2023)...this is not the site you want to rely on for opinions even.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on RSN about Behind The Voice Actors

There is a discussion on the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard about the reliability of BTVA and it's use to support BLP details and DOBs. Any input would be appreciated, see WP:RSN#Restrictions Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Level old archived website

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

While researching for the Williams Arcade's Greatest Hits, I stumbled across an interview that Ken Horowitz conducted with the compilation's lead programmer on the Internet Archive. I also saw that Horowitz's work on Sega-16 is listed as reliable given his credentials. Would that apply to his interviews on The Next Level website as well? He has several more on interviews preserved on the Internet Archive that might be useful to others if yes.

Also, in case it helps, several others from the website's staff have written for other reliable gaming sites. Although, it appears they started here.

Chris Scantleberry - IGN and Otaku USA
James Cunningham - Hardcore Gamer as well as newspaper and news outlets
Travis Fahs - IGN and Game Developer

At the very least, I'm curious whether the interview with Vavasour is reliable. If the rest (or parts) of the archived site is useful for others, then great. Appreciate any and all input. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

No opinion on the site in general, but note that interviews are typically permissible sources for statements from the interviewed party as a self-published source under the conditions of WP:ABOUTSELF, even if the source may not otherwise be authoritative, so long as there is no reason to doubt the interview's authenticity. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I added the content from the interview to the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Quarter to Three

Tom Chick's website. Bruce Geryk (GameSpot, 1UP, CGW, Escapist) also occasionally writes there, expert in wargaming. Cited by some reliable sources: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Mika1h (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia narwitz should be seen as a reputable source and i have issues with the GTA V articles and the like.

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

i am desperately trying to understand why kotaku is a reliable source... when sophia narwitz is not? with her long and large body of work it seems that the dismissal of her is ideologically biased. i've had SUCH A TIME trying to try and give a contrary opinion and the context and dispel other misinformation and provide important context on how Carolyn Petit acted in bad faith and is little different than jack Thompson.

and how the censorship arguably hurts lgbt people like myself.

so i've compiled an internet archive repository of some relevant videos at least as much as it would allow.

i hope it is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisteOsoTruth (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, individuals (by which I mean influencers, bloggers, social media users and the like, who aren't acting in a professional capacity or beholden to an editor) aren't considered reliable sources. There are exceptions, but a compelling case that they're a subject-matter expert must be made for consensus to be likely to swing in their favor.

As such, we don't usually consider YouTubers as reliable sources. It doesn't have anything to do with censorship of LGBT content- Wikipedia has quite a lot of LGBT content. From what I can tell, Sophia Narwitz is a YouTuber, and a "senior writer" for Niche Gamer, which we do not consider to be a reliable source of information. (Latest discussion about that was here.)

I wouldn't consider Jack Thompson a reliable source either. I don't know about Carolyn Petit, but she's apparently cited in some articles through her work on GameSpot. Post-2023 content from WP:KOTAKU is generally considered unreliable due to their editorial standards declining, though exceptions have been made on a case-by-case basis. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a point about Jack Thompson, we don't cite him directly, but instead use reliable sources that discuss Thompson's issues with GTA, which further were sufficiently widespread to make them WP:DUE for inclusion. The only thing I see even close to reliable cover of Narwitz is run-ins with the "anti-woke" crowd, but that doesn't speak to any of her opinions on GTA V. Masem (t) 00:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errr have you seen our current stance on Kotaku? It's not even considered wholesale reliable... Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VentureBeat

A discussion about VentureBeat's reliability is taking place at WP:RS/N. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on RSN about CBR.com

There is a discussion on the reliability of CBR.com on RSN. It's listed as 'situational' per WP:VALNET, so subject knowledge of if it's reliable in this particular situation would be helpful. Anyone interested can find it here WP:RSN#CBR and Resident Evil mainline series. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]