Navigace Politiky Wikipedie pro zdroje videoher

Na oslavu zahájení Žádný člověk má Sky on PS4 tento úterý a nadcházející vydání pro 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.

V rámci Wikimedia článek, Masem explains…

"Wikipedia obecně vyniká na pokrytí současných tématech, jako je videohry, které jsou obsaženy v on-line zdrojů, to dělá někdo, že mohou získat přístup k webovému dobrý výzkumník v oblasti," [...] "pokrytí těchto popových tématech tendenci být některé z nejlepších up-to-date komplexní pokrytí na webu. "

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 Videohry sekce.

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…

"Vzhledem k tomu, pole videoher žurnalistiky, výzkumu, kritiky a komentáře jsou relativně nové ve srovnání s podobnými pokrytí tradičních médií, tradiční způsoby získávání může být poněkud vzácný. Kromě toho současný rozvoj a rozšiřování zdrojů založených na internetu spolu s moderní herní scény vedlo k mnohem vyšším stupněm krytí exkluzivní on-line, než je tomu u jiných médií. Tyto faktory způsobují, že stanovení spolehlivých videohry zdrojů složitý problém "

Existuje devět úseky pokrývat co se zaměřit, jak se dívat na to, pokud jde o získávání informací z internetových stránek hry. Nabízejí také úplný seznam webových stránek, které jsou dobré pro získávání, uvážení, a ty, které jsou v podstatě zakázány od bytí zdrojů kvůli tomu, že nespolehlivý. Posledním z nich je nejzajímavější.

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.

Například webové stránky s uživatelem-předložil obsah je označen jako nespolehlivý, to zahrnuje fóra, jako je GameFAQs a dokonce NeoGAF, z nichž obě jsou považovány za "nespolehlivá" na základě obsahu "user-předložil".

Agregátory zpráv jako N4G a VG vydání jsou také označeny jako "nespolehlivé" vzhledem k uživatelským kurátorem obsah.

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.

Překvapivě, IGN není na stejné lodi jako Gamespot přesto, že má spoustu obsahu vytvářeného uživateli a také pomocí volné noze často k pokrytí velké příběhy. IGN je považována za ověřenou spolehlivý zdroj.

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 přizvukoval stating that basically if a site is known for being reliable then the information is probably good…

"Musíme si být vědomi toho jen proto, že zdroj, znám jako [spolehlivý zdroj], tištěný něco, nedělá to skutečný fakt, (dále jen Faktem je, že [spolehlivý zdroj] tištěný toto tvrzení). Zdravý rozum, jiné zdroje, konsensus, a podobně, to vše může říci, kdy se zveřejněná tvrzení je nesprávné, nevhodné nebo zkreslí pravdu non-stanovisko bázi, a ergo se jedná o případ, kdy bychom prostě ignorovat jeden možná-chybné vyjádření normálně spolehlivým zdrojem ve prospěch konzistence se všemi ostatními zdroji venku. "

Ještě horší je, že v jednom případě biografie informace o IGN byl zpochybněn, když jeden editor zjistil, že uživatelé mohou upravovat biografie. To vedlo několik dalších editorů, kteří se snažili, aby se zabývali zpracováním biografií, které se neliší od zdroje IMDB, který může také editovat komunita.

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.

A pouze orientační, IMDB je označen jako nespolehlivý zdroj Wikipedie.

Another interesting entry is VG 24/7. They’re considered reliable by Wikipedia, with a strana 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.”

Pro porovnání VG 24 / 7 byl stejný web, který napsal náhledem Uncharted 4 na základě Uncharted 2's hratelnost, jak reportoval revoluce hry. VG 24/7’s publisher Patrick Garrett also published a hit-piece on Mark Kern on Února 17th, 2015 a popřel Mark Kernovi právo reagovat.

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 je 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, psaní...

“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”.

Pro DualShockers uvádějí, že lokalit, jako CNET, čas, VG 24 / 7 a Gamespot citoval je pro některé jejich lámání zpravodajství, ale editor CAR 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”

Tak daleko, jak víme, DualShockers dosud kritizovat hru na základě náhledu záběrů hry vydané před sedmi lety. Nicméně, v očích Wikipedia pověření převáží obrovské chyby v omyl.

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 Července 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.”

Ostatní redaktoři byli rozhodně více ochotni dát The Jimquisition na "důvěryhodný zdroj" odznak, založený na jeho práci v Destructoid a The snílek.

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.

Podle Wikipedie editor Thibbs Back in Říjen 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.

Zatímco specializované weby Gematsu a Siliconera jsou považovány za spolehlivé, Nika Gamer není, Zatímco Mary Sue je považována za spolehlivou na základě situační, OnRPG není, Zatímco Vox-vlastnil SBNation je považován za spolehlivý, domov EVO, Shoryuken, není, Zatímco Polygon je považován za spolehlivý, Eventhubs není. A zatímco Kotaku je považován situační za její obsah blog-tier, puchýřů Thumbs byl považovány za nespolehlivé prostě proto, že byl sub-divize ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.

Nakonec, chcete-li být považován za "spolehlivý zdroj" pro herní krytí ze strany Wikipedie, musíte splňovat následující kritéria:

• 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.

• Můžete být agregátor recenzí.

• 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.

• A co je nejdůležitější, v případě, že je "Un-diskutoval stanovení" on your site or “Wikipedia Silence” from editors, then it’s likely that your site is “unreliable”.

(Hlavní obraz s laskavým svolením Ashion)