Talk:Sweet Baby Inc./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This article needs more citations covering both sides of the "controversy"

First, allow me to propose a couple of edits:

In 2024, the studio became the a target of online users who claimed it promoted a "woke agenda". (there is a long list of companies, it's not the only target)

The group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for allegedly failing Steam's code of conduct. (it's not against Steam's code of conduct, otherwise it would've been banned a few days ago. If you believe it is, please provide objective sources)

Now back to the main topic, this article needs more diverse facts (not opinions):

Since the tweet that started the whole "controversy" is indirectly mentioned, it might be better to add the direct citation as well as the tweet that followed that one. It's also worth mentioning that this employee was banned on X for these tweets.

I will also leave a couple of additional links here, that may or may not be good sources according to Wikipedia standards by themselves, however these contain a lot of facts that are ommited by this article:

https://www.theshortcut.com/p/sweet-baby-inc-detected-what-actually-happened

https://game8.co/articles/latest/sweet-baby-inc-employees-fail-spectacularly-at-trying-to-get-steam-curator-banned

I would like to kindly ask editors to be consistent in their efforts to be objective and include more dry facts in the article, instead of favoring facts of one side by not including any factual reasons behind actions of another side. Moon darker (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. the target still makes sense regardless of how many "targets" there are. allegedly is unnecessary since the sentence is referring to what the employee said. As mentioned above, tweets from employees are generally not notable on their own, so their inclusion here is dependent on inclusion in reliable sources. Neither of those sources has been vetted by editors yet. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Should the GDC talk be included as a source on its own? Or does it still need coverage from other reliable sources? Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless it has relevance to the history of the company (discusses its founding, employee count, studio partners, etc.), I see no reason for it to be included without additional relevant coverage. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The GDC talk in question discussed the basic concept this entire company is built upon, surely it's important and relevant to the history of the company then?

Even if you deem that unimportant for the history of the company, it is one of the key points for the "Controversy" part of the article. Moon darker (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The only source that talk about that GDC talk so far is from NicheGamer. They quoted a small part of her speech where she says:

"If you’re a creative working in AAA which I did for many, many years: put this stuff up to your higher-ups. And if they don’t see the value in what you’re asking for when you ask for consultancy, when you ask for research: go have a coffee with your marketing team and just terrify them with the possibility if they don’t give you what you want.”

But the quote seems to be out-of-context as there is no further commentary on that quote - except on the emphasis on the word terrify.

Another GDC quote was featured in ThatParkPlace.com where she said:

"We feed them the same thing that we know that they love and we keep on feeding it. We’re like, ‘Here you go. We know you love it. Eat this. Eat this. Eat this.’ So then when they get anything else they react as a picky baby would, which would be like, ‘Oh! No thank you. I do not want this.’ And we’ve actually done this so long that what we’re doing is creating an entire nation of picky babies and they make us scared to deviate from what we actually want to do. Just in case these picky babies don’t want to play our games."

I am not comfortable including Thatparkplace.com as they have multiple articles attacking Sweet Baby Inc - including "Sweet Baby Inc. Runs To Kotaku After Their Cancel Campaign Got Destroyed And Their Company’s Vile Agenda Was Exposed". I'm not 100% sure on NicheGamer, but they seem less extreme. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Niche Gamer is considered unreliable per WP:VG/S. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain: Thank you so much. I had no idea of the existence of WP:VG/S#Unreliable sources. Yeah; both citations take her GDC comments out of context. To be frank, I don't care about the controversy, but I'm glad there is a Wikipedia page that condenses all of its history - without reactionary YouTubers and questionable sources talking about it. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this, the full GDC video is nearly 30-minutes long. The negative reactions use a similar trick done with Anita Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency videos where her points are taken out of context. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The history of the company is already covered by other sources; is there anything in particular the GDC talk can add?
  Whether or not it's a "key point" for the "Controversy" section will be determined by reliable sources. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Also, per WP:ALLEGEDLY, expressions of doubt like that can imply that something is untruthful, and should only be used when the source themselves uses them. An editor personally disagreeing with something is WP:OR and is exactly the sort of situation where we're not supposed to use that sort of language. --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Would it be better to make it a quote then?

  The group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for "failing Steam's code of conduct". Moon darker (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't need quotes; nothing about the sentence's phrasing is incorrect. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Point 1: The group is not actually failing Steam's code of conduct

  Point 2: It is a citation of an employee claiming the opposite

  Solution: Clearly show that it is a citation, like you did with "woke agenda" Moon darker (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Unless reliable sources deem otherwise, whether or not it actually fails Steam's code of conduct is irrelevant and original research. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  You surely know the lists of reliable and unreliable sources well.

  From the bottom of your heart, do you believe to follow WP:BEINSCRUTABLE?

  It is pretty much impossible to cover the "controversy" part of the article without at least minimal use of WP:SELFSOURCE because the absolute majority of people are going against all "reliable sources" in this case (notice: unreliable statement, no statistical research was done on this topic, but mass media together with all the loudest pro-SBI activists seem to be massively outnumbered here).

  While you can't base the article off what these people are saying, all main reasons that this "controversy" stems from fall nicely under WP:SELFSOURCE, and you seem to actively avoid the inclusion of sources containing those reasons, even with added context. That's why I mentioned WP:BEINSCRUTABLE in the first place. Moon darker (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to including the GDC talk personally, though as noted before we shouldn't put words in their mouth or take quotes out of context. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Self-published sources should almost never be used in "Controversy" sections. All information should be supported by reliable, verifiable sources. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you agree that it is as reliable as it gets in this situation? There are limits on what reliable source can cover.

  It is verifiable that there is at least a quarter million people actively against the company though, and there is an uncountable amount of console players without a Steam account, plus those who simply never subscribe to Steam curators in general. Moon darker (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course there are limits on what reliable sources can cover—but it's not up to Wikipedia to correct them. The matter of due and undue weight is only relevant insofar as reliable sources are concerned, not the number of people in a Steam group. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you agree that it is a citation? And that it might not be accurate? If you do, then the current state of article is suboptimal.

Otherwise, is it not a citation, or is it an accurate citation?

What are the sources claiming that this Steam group did break community guidelines, and if it did, why is it not banned yet? Moon darker (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The article does not claim that the group broke Steam's community guidelines, so no such source is needed. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a forum, you know what I meant here. The meaning of sentence we're discussing is ambiguous right now. It might be percieved as a statement of fact unless quoted correctly. According to MOS:QUOTEPOV, I don't see any reason not to clear things up. It's not a cultural norm, nor is it unneccessary - because a reader might percieve it as "Wikipedia's own voice". At the same time emotional background of that statement is quite obvious. Moon darker (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for failing Steam's code of conduct is a statement of fact. I don't think it's ambiguous, nor does it need quotation marks—it's comparable to the "Permissible" quote at MOS:QUOTEPOV. I'll leave it to others to share their thoughts. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, they seem to have a problem with the wording line of the line about the group violating Steam's code of conduct, which they claim is incorrect since it hasn't been taken down yet. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand their point, I just don't think it's an actual problem for the reasons stated above. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Though, as my previous edit implied, I would prefer not to go this deep on this aspect in the article at all - as far as I can tell only a single source actually discusses the reports; PCgamer actually only says that The situation grew in scale as some Sweet Baby employees, frustrated at the idea of a curated list specifically made to avoid games they had worked on, acknowledged the group on social media. While the tweet has been removed, one employee also discovered and shared the group curator's Twitter account. Most other sources are similar. One thing I remember from Gamergate (harassment campaign) is that there was this ever-shifting web of narratives presented by adherents that weren't really treated that seriously by the best WP:RSes and which tended to lack long-term coverage, which kept creeping into the article. This feels similar - the sheer size of this section already shows the massively disproportionate amount of attention some editors and forums give to this sort of trivia and the narrative they've built around it based on a personal belief that it's central or a personal outlook in which it drives their own views. That can produce a lopsided or meandering article if we're not careful to take a step back and actually focus on what the sources say overall rather than the aspects that became emotive rallying cries on Twitter or the like. Obviously if things like that do get substantial coverage they still have to be covered (and when they have a lot of coverage, we can rely on that to determine how we approach them), but I'm simply not seeing it here, so a better option might just be to omit all mention of the group being reported entirely until / unless there's more coverage. Right now it is a single line cited to Dot Esports and nothing else (and while Dot Esports may be usable for games, we're going outside of the usually uncontroversial things we rely on sources like that for here.) Is that really WP:DUE? If most sources don't consider it worth even touching on, then we shouldn't include it out of a desire to "answer" those narratives or anything like that unless the sources do - we should just leave it out entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be ambiguous; we can't word it in a way that makes it sound definitive in either direction without unambiguous sourcing. You haven't actually presented any yourself - your arguments are WP:OR, in the sense that you're trying to make your own personal arguments for why your gut feeling tells you the group doesn't violate any policies. But that's not how we write articles; per WP:ALLEGED, we can't word the article in a way that implies to readers that that's the case. Right now we attribute it, which is the appropriate way to do it. And it's also worth pointing out that PCGamer says that Regardless of your opinion on that, it should be noted that Steam's guidelines for this sort of thing prohibit insults, harassment, and discrimination. "The creators and members of these groups are responsible for ensuring that they adhere to all of the guidelines outlined above." It can be argued that the anti-Sweet Baby group is violating said guidelines. - which doesn't support your interpretation and which certainly wouldn't justify a wording that directly casts doubt on the idea that the reports. --Aquillion (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not my "gut feeling", Steam Support replied to the author of that group that it did not violate any policies, with limited screenshots provided. It's just common sense that the group would've been banned instantly if it did violate anything, considering the amount of traction this situation got. I deemed it unnecessary to mention that, because it was not covered by "reliable sources". It just goes to show how hilarious the situation is and how much extended confirmed editors are willing to dig into the situation.

I'll also mention here that articles by Eurogamer, Kotaku (which is generally deemed unreliable by Wikipedia, and imo shouldn't be used in such articles) and PC Gamer were received pretty poorly, other outlets didn't dare to tweet their respective articles at all.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do, but imo WP:SELFSOURCE exists exactly for situations like this, as all the primary sources are WP:SELFSOURCE. It's impossible to cover the situation through "reliable" news outlets when they're scared to write a word in the wrong direction about it. Moon darker (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Whatever other users think of those articles isn't the point here, what matters is what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Getting "ratio'd" on Twitter/X is not a reason to discount an article's reliability. Harryhenry1 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph of my message addresses this, you added 0 valuable information by replying this way, plus you only covered one third of the message. Moon darker (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

A tweet is obviously not a WP:RS; even beyond that, the screenshot in the image simply doesn't say what the tweet asserts it says. Even if it did, we wouldn't be able to use it; WP:ABOUTSELF is inappropriate in this situation for numerous reasons. The tweet (by the creator of the group, presenting what looks to me like a canned ticket-closure message of no significance and using it to claim personal vindication) is clearly unduly self-serving, and the image's province itself is unknown, so there are reasonable doubts to its authenticity. It also involves claims about third parties, since you want to use it to imply via WP:SYNTH that reports against the group (which, I'll reiterate above, only a single source currently even notes happened) were invalid. Likewise, your feelings about the reaction to those tweets and your personal opinions about what that means aren't really usable to dictate article content. Consider the alternate possibility, which I outlined above, and which is really the default per WP:DUE: The reason nobody else has covered this aspect isn't because they're terrified of being ratioed on Twitter, it's because it is trivial. The reason Steam has been giving canned replies and has done little is because they give canned replies to almost everything, and rarely act at all. If these are significant developments, it should be easy to find WP:RSes covering them; currently the entire tangent seems so trivial that it would probably be better to omit it entirely until and unless secondary sources cover it in more depth than the one line in a single source that we have currently. --Aquillion (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Lets stop here.

The first paragraph in it's entirety was addressing your accusation of me relying on "gut feelings", when in reality it's just WP:CS (WP:UCS) supported by that particular tweet. Note that I did not ask to use that tweet in the article, and even noted that this screenshot is not complete, thus can't be used on its own.

Regarding "canned replies", that sounds like your own personal opinion here without any WP:RSes provided. I've seen a counterexample recently.

In my opinion, you and Rhain are harming the Wikipedia project by completely ignoring WP:CS (WP:UCS), WP:5P2 and WP:5P5 Moon darker (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is, there are alternate explanations for everything that you are, personally, choosing to believe; and much of what you seem to believe is both fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL and contradicts the best available sources. Therefore, we cannot present the conclusions you personally feel are so obvious without an actual reliable source backing them up. If the things you believe are true, supportable and due, then it should be possible to find WP:RSes to directly support them; if you can't find them then you should at least consider the possibility that the people on the forums you're reading this on may be distorting, exaggerating, or outright fabricating parts of what you read, which was a major problem with similar controversies in the past. Even if you're unwilling to consider that possibility, Wikipedia has to do so, which means that we can't rely on WP:ABOUTSELF sources for the kinds of things you want to add. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, allow me to apologize, because I linked WP:CS instead of WP:UCS both here and in the DRN thread, which led to confusion.

With due respect, I always consider the possibility of being wrong myself, or that sources I read might be incorrect. I did spend a considerable amount of time checking all available information, and taking everything into account: the information provided by people on the forums is exaggerated at times, and lies can be found here and there, but the main thought, as far as my "WP:OR" goes, (yes, I understand what I said here, it's a truthful irony if you will) is true at its core.

There are tweets by company employees confirming they worked on large chunks of plot for some games. The GDC talk can't be taken out of context - the CEO described how the company works. Then there are tweets with an attempt to start harassment campaign towards the Steam curator. I probably forgot something else that was already discussed on this talk page. All the links are here. If you want to be sure (for yourself) that all of this was posted by employees - LinkedIn is open + as far as I'm aware, SBI never stated that the people in Twitter are not related to the company, and they would've done it instantly if it was the case. It's all just WP:UCS, it legit feels like most of active editors for the article didn't even attempt to investigate the timeline of events. Moon darker (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Tweets, by their nature, can only tell us so much on their own. I'd imagine SBI's involvement varies from game-to-game, but we can't know that from just tweets alone. Again, a tweet on its own is not a reliable source. The article already mentions that employees tried to get the Steam page taken down, since it's been reported on by other reliable sources. And as for "The GDC talk can't be taken out of context", it can. Anything can be taken out of context, that's how online discourse tends to work. If we're going to include it as a source we can't put words in their mouth. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Then use the GDC talk as a source and DON'T put words in her mouth.

SHEESH ... 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• No, we definitely couldn't use tweets from employees claiming X, Y, and Z about the company, for countless reasons. First, when they're not talking in an official capacity, then the company itself is a third party, which immediately bars using them as an WP:ABOUTSELF source in this article all on its own. Second, depending on the context, it could be unduly self-serving (ie. people have an incentive to play up the importance of their work - yes, something can both be unduly self-serving in one context and negative in another.) Third, though, and most importantly, it's still WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because you state yourself that your goal is to build a timeline of events that you feel explains what "really" happened for the overarching event, based on things you personally saw where randos on Twitter and forums told you that these tweets were central to their own feelings and opinions on the topic. I can understand that you're upset that WP:RS coverage doesn't reflect what you consider the timeline of events; but again, trying to "correct" it here is trying to WP:WGW. If you feel they got it wrong by not highlighting the things your gut tells you is important, then you should send letters to the editor asking for updates and corrections. But Wikipedia isn't the place to "reveal the truth"; your objection that we haven't performed the research you feel you did and haven't come to the conclusion that the tweets you feel are so significant shows the core problem, because that is textbook WP:OR. Lots of people affiliated with the company make lots of tweets; the GDC talk is huge and covers a ton of different things. Why do you feel that the few random things you want to add, pulled out of context, are important? How would you demonstrate their relevance? Those are the things you need WP:RSes for in order to avoid original research. Ultimately our article is going to reflect WP:RS coverage, so if you think there are things your gut tells you are vital that were left out, the thing to do is to contact those reliable sources, or to wait and hope that it gets more coverage. We can't help you by presenting your personal theories of the "real timeline" as fact ourselves; all we can do is cover them if a WP:RS does. Again, if there's one thing about Wikipedia that you need to understand, it's that we summarize reliable sources, we don't do our own research. You're free to repeat the research you feel you've done on forums elsewhere, or to send it to various publishers and news sources hoping they cover it; but it's no use here. If you repeatedly fail - again, you should consider the possibility that you're wrong, that the quotes are pulled out of context to rile people up and push their buttons, and that, most importantly, the reason RSes haven't focused on them is because they've looked over the whole thing and decided (perhaps completely accurately!) "ah, it's another 4chan / kiwifarms / gamergate-style harassment op" and focused on that rather than on the usual ever-changing list of dubious faux grievances they always present when running that sort of op. Coverage is more internet-savvy than it was a decade ago, and the playbook is sort of tired right now; random internet shouty people going "hey, look at this list of quotes and clips we've assembled into a dosser! These people are TOTALLY BAD!" doesn't get the same traction it used to. That's not just my analysis - by my reading it's what most of the sources that have covered this more-or-less say in summarizing it. Those are, I think, the actually important points, based on current coverage. Even if you think that coverage is wrong, Wikipedia isn't the place to try and "correct" it. --Aquillion (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I already replied to most of these claims in other branches of the discussion.

  It's not about my personal opinion at all, in fact, I just want will of people to be properly documented instead of "these far-right* keyboard warriors don't understand anything".

  * - citation needed gamers are just people who want to play good games

  The narrative you're following is supported by a vocal minority of people, while an actual majority is being ignored. I understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy, however in its current state the "controversy" section of the article is downright a lie. Not by my "personal opinion", it's just not the way situation unfolded, omitted information leads readers to wrong conclusions. Remember, context matters.

  This article is not rocket science, thus I deem your constant seeking of reliable sources to be a bit extreme.

  Once again, I do not want to include any emotional outcries from gaming community. I do not ask to humiliate SBI employees either. However, the contoversy part should capture the real causes of events, a good alternative would be to remove this part completely otherwise.

  I will kindly ask you once more, do not twist my words. Moon darker (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's never extreme to seek reliable sources, as everything--everything--on Wikipedia must be verifiable. That means you must be able to point to a reliable source outside of Wikipedia to corroborate what you're saying. Wikipedia simply cannot capture the "real causes of events" if they haven't appeared in reliable sources. That's simply axiomatic. I know that can be unsatisfying, and I also know that Wikipedia's policies are the worst possible way to run an encyclopedia (with the exception of all the other options). I am afraid the options are either to wait for coverage in reliable sources (or find some that currently exists), or to go through the AfD process and seek deletion of the article until such time as the subject has been more fully fleshed out. There is no exception to sourcing or verifiability policies either for "fairness" or "showing what really happened." Both of those goals come dangerously close to an attempt to right great wrongs. I would urge all involved to understand that Wikipedia is ever-evolving. The state of the article today will not be where it is in a few weeks. While any given snapshot of this encyclopedia can seem incorrect (sometimes egregiously so) in the moment, in the long sweep of time, the arc of Wikipedia bends towards accuracy. Sometimes we all have to have a bit of faith in that. Here's hoping everyone had a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment!

  It just occured to me that claims in the article also seem to be quite WP:EXCEPTIONAL per clause 4: Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people.. It is to be proven of course, and I'm not sure how to cover that.

  That's just for the future reference should the AfD process be initiated. Moon darker (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  The 'relevant community' here are the journalists who have covered this, not the folks posting on Twitter or reddit. The article reflects the mainstream reliable sources quite well. MrOllie (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hard objection. Journalists nowadays are largely irrelevant to the gaming community. Especially so with sources like Aftermath which doesn't seem to have any weight behind it at all and Kotaku with claims made by the editor behind the article.

  There are more neutral sources out there, but I doubt editors are willing to make use of those. Moon darker (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  If Wikipedia really followed the standard you are suggesting here, articles like Electronic harassment would be very, very different. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's just an indirect insult. And a lie on top of that.

  Please refrain from commenting on things unrelated to Sweet Baby Inc. Moon darker (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  The point remains, on Wikipedia we follow the reliable sources, and subcultures do not get to substitute for that with their own version of reality. MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  It would've been good if it was true. Unfortunately, subcultures do get to substitute everything with their own version of reality here, and it's a very rare occurence to see the real version of reality on Wikipedia when it comes to politics-related articles nowadays.

  I do understand your stance on keeping the discussion in one place, but it would be better if we continue either at User talk:MrOllie or User talk:Moon darker. Moon darker (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The article in its current form actively harms a lot of people. I understand that Wikipedia-articles are "ever evolving", but they base of an article should be solid enough to start it at all.

  I agree with the other user, therefore, that it'd be best to remove the section of the article until sources exist that include ALL the relevant information and are reputable enough to be accepted by you. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You have my most heartfelt sympathy. I cannot imagine being so morally bankrupt that I would have to lie to protect my preferred message. That must be terrible to deal with. 199.111.212.145 (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, it's more akin to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. A moral reorganization, if you will. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

absolutely agree, Wiki is such a joke, they are absolutely refusing to even look into the facts. facts are facts regardless of what anyone says. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only ever include content that's verifiable to one or more reliable sources. As things stand right now, the content you're advocating for inclusion is not verifiable to a reliable source. You have, at best, a couple of tweets, and a whole bunch of speculation. While we can include tweets as citations, it is only within the limited scope afforded by WP:ABOUTSELF. What you're advocating for inclusion is extremely far outside that scope, and seems to be a significant amount of original research, something that is forbidden by policy in articles.

Now if you have a reliable source that supports the changes you want to be made, please link it here now so that we can see what it says and figure out what (if any) changes need to be made. Otherwise, I strongly urge you to drop this stick, and back slowly away from the horse. Multiple experienced editors have pointed out the issues with the changes you're seeking, and simply repeatedly repeating it will not convince anyone. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what speculations do you see in my proposals, I do not see any reason to continue discussing abstract matters. Just provide a list of what is false in your opinion, or what is being speculated upon.

Like I said earlier, there are alternative solutions, refer to my message from 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC).

With due respect, your reaction seems to be emotional and related to your affiliation with certain subcultures. Moon darker (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your comment at 20:18, 10 March 2024 offers no alternative solutions that are compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Per multiple policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS) we can only include content in a Wikipedia article if it is verifiable to one or more reliable sources, see WP:5P2. It is not our purpose nor our role to document the will of people in any way other than it is covered in reliable sources.

Please explain what speculations do you see in my proposals You are asserting that the sources are wrong based upon your interpretation of a screenshot taken out of content. You have asserted that the absolute majority of people are going against all "reliable sources" in this case without providing any evidence to back up the claim. You have asserted that employees of Sweet Baby Inc have [attempted] to start harassment campaign towards the Steam curator without providing any evidence to back up the claim. None of these assertions can be included in the article until you provide one or more reliable sources that support them.

With due respect, your reaction seems to be... Please comment on content and not the contributor. Do not cast aspersions about my or any other editors emotional state, or whatever affiliations you perceive them to have. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Somehow all editors prefer to omit existence of other policies (WP:UCS aka WP:IAR and WP:5P5), and, although not a policy, but it should become a policy: WP:LIE. What's the point in all the policies if it results in articles detached from reality?

You are asserting that the sources are wrong based upon your interpretation of a screenshot taken out of context - I never said sources are wrong, did I? I'm saying that sources lie by omission. It's not wrong, it's actually a clever move, but it makes the overall picture incomplete.

You have asserted that the absolute majority of people are going against all "reliable sources" in this case without providing any evidence to back up the claim. - well, I did provide evidence, in the comment you mentioned in the previous claim, although Harryhenry1 argued that Getting "ratio'd" on Twitter/X is not a reason to discount an article's reliability. One might treat subscriber count of the Steam curator a decent proof too, considering absolutely 0 positive coverage in mass media.

You have asserted that employees of Sweet Baby Inc have [attempted] to start harassment campaign towards the Steam curator without providing any evidence to back up the claim - that's simply false, I provided evidence in the comment that started this very topic: one, two, and the middle one not mentioned in the original comment for context - it's hard to find an archived original of the last one, but I'll find you one if you need it.

Sorry for the last paragraph from previous message. Still, I believe you didn't really read my comments considering 80% of stuff you mentioned as "speculations" had proofs linked within this page. Moon darker (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

UCS is not a policy, it's an essay about WP:IAR. IAR and 5P5 have some exceptions, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are among them. LIE has been an essay since it's creation 14 years ago.

I'm saying that sources lie by omission So you're asserting that the sources are wrong, because they're intentionally leaving out context.

well, I did provide evidence A twitter ratio is not a reliable source, nor is it any reason to discount the reliability of an article or its publication. Neither is the number of subscribers to a steam curator list.

that's simply false, I provided evidence in the comment that started this very topic None of those tweets are reliable sources, and do not qualify for the ABOUTSELF exception.

None of what you're saying here can be included in the article without a reliable source. No matter where you ask this question, you will get the same answer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, sorry, I forgot to address Your comment at 20:18, 10 March 2024 offers no alternative solutions that are compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. According to WP:RECENT and due to lack of reliable sources, it does: a good alternative would be to remove this part completely otherwise. Moon darker (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

At three relatively well balanced paragraphs, compared to the five for the rest of the article, we don't really have a RECENTism issue here. While I would hesitate at adding any additional content to the harassment section outside of some sort of significant change in the coverage, I see no compelling reason to remove any content at this time. We are giving a fair and verifiable accounting of the backlash against this company, as those events have been told through reliable sources. That is all we're here to do.

If there is some element of these events that you feel are not being adequately covered within reliable sources, I would suggest that you contact them or another reliable source that you feel may be receptive to the idea and either pitch an article for publishing or ask them to make a correction to their coverage. Until the events that you are asserting we should cover are themselves covered in a reliable source, we cannot include them in any article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

completely agree. I am left leaning btw, never voted red once in my life, and i just want to point out that if your are ignoring verifiable sources from articles simply because you seem them as "alt"right". that is a problem, its like saying that anyone on the alt-right has no right to a voice. as a person that just wants to be accepted by all walks of life, your completely bias if you think that a source cant be reliable merely based on political affiliation alone. that is folly. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, even if you go out of your way to find any individuals supporting Sweet Baby Inc. within gaming communities, it's very hard to find any supporters of the company except for journalists and game developers (interested parties) and non-gamers (they haven't done any research and in general can not be considered to be a part of this conflict/controversy - I am referring to a few non-gaming-related subforums in this case). As a precaution, yep, WP:OR - but WP:OR doesn't change anything in context of this discussion where you ask for sources. Moon darker (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at there. As I talked about before, we don't judge the reliability of a source based on how vocal the backlash to it is. What do you think the reliable sources are missing here? Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

See DRN - Sweet Baby Inc. and other messages on this talk page. TL;DR is: Reliable sources have failed to process primary sources by omitting a lot of valuable information and interviewing only one side of the controversy. Moon darker (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to correct the failings of the reliable sources, see WP:RGW. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

See this Moon darker (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia only "knows" what is in the sources. If Wikipedia were about what is "real" or "true," then we could never have a collaborative encyclopedia worked on by a multitude of volunteers. You would just have people yelling at one another about what they "know" to be "true." So instead, the guiding ethos of Wikipedia is that it summarizes, in proportion, the various views on a subject as they are found in the reliable sources. That way, it's not you or me saying "this is right and I can prove it," but rather "here, let me show you the coverage in the sources" and objective metrics like how many sources mention a given idea. And you know what? There is still lots of yelling. But less I think. You say that the sources are "lying by omission," and while I understand what you mean, that's missing the point a bit. Again, Wikipedia only knows what is in those sources. What we are doing here is a lagging indicator. Wikipedia is very poorly set up to cover things as they happen in the moment. That's why you have pages like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Your complaints are valid in the grand scheme of things, but Wikipedia is the wrong tool to address them. It's a bit like saying "my lawnmower is broken because it doesn't chop down trees." Lawnmowers weren't intended to do so, just as the use you seem to want to put Wikipedia to is not intended. Then again, if consensus decides I am all wet on this, then I am! It's the beauty of this strange collective. Cheers, and here's to hoping everyone has a good week ahead. Dumuzid (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Like we discussed earlier, I fully support removal of unbalanced portions of the article - if that's the only way to deal with the problems of this article due to WP:RECENT. Have a nice one. Moon darker (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can provide reliable sources what you're describing is WP:FALSEBALANCE. We simply report on the controversy as it is reported on by reliable sources, and as multiple editors have said that is what we're currently doing in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If there's nothing to WP:FALSEBALANCE, then there is no WP:FALSEBALANCE Moon darker (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

honestly this has really pulled the veil out from my eyes. i will never look at a wiki article again without seeing it with a grain of salt. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, how exactly is a "reliable" article deemed "unreliable"?

As it stands, Kotaku is a Situational source that should be reviewed case-by-case

It is my argument that the Kotaku article suffers from few but critical failings that should make it unreliable specifically on the topic of SBI. Only because it fails to include important context about what caused the "rampant harrassment" it is referring to. That context being social media communications from SBI employees themselves, and the calling for mass-reporting of the steam group owner's Personal account. Yes it is not wikipedia's job to correct for failings in articles nor decide what is truth. But I have to ask; Does it not fall on wikipedia to make sure sources being used arent misrepresenting facts or events? Battle00333 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious way to argue a Kotaku article is unreliable is to demonstrate that it is AI-generated, because that's what got Kotaku downgraded in the first place. If you think it's unreliable for other reasons you could raise the issue on WP:RSN, but I doubt you'd get anywhere - disputing a source's reliability because you disagree with its conclusions is rarely productive, since it invites original research and risks editors replacing their personal views for those of the sources. You'd probably have to demonstrate that the source is saying things that are so wildly out-of-line with other RSes writing on the topic as to be WP:FRINGE, which is clearly not the case here - the other RSes all say the same thing. On top of this, the Kotaku piece has been cited by other RSes, which per WP:USEBYOTHERS is a strong argument for its reliability. But, again, you can take the argument to WP:RSN if you think they'll listen. --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be put on WP:RSN , from the looks of it the site Kotaku has questionable practices in the business. Being blacklisted by companies like Nintendo; Bethesda; Ubisoft [1]https://kotaku.com/a-price-of-games-journalism-1743526293 over the years cause of unprofessional acts and leaking confidential information for game details since 2013 and outright encouraging piracy, criminal act's. [2]https://kotaku.com/so-called-pirates-are-doing-the-work-when-publishers-fa-1846533244 It goes without saying smaller outlets have the right to be included regarding this topic as valid sources. If they are deemed trustworthy. I do not approve the language some of the team used when mentioning these outlets. ErrgoProxy (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just a user that walked into here after adding that "Controversy" sub-heading. (Currently titled it "Online backlash" for better accuracy.) I saw this IP user make a couple of uncontributive edits including removing two-thirds of the backlash section without any consideration. In the edit summary they mentioned "a certain 'rant' that the CEO had" and I have no idea what that is since I never heard of this company until yesterday. For the sake of clearance and removing skepticism could someone clarify? Carlinal (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume they're referring to this GDC talk, which has got some people fired up based on a brief clip. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Brief clip. Okay. Gotcha. Yoshiman6464 is right anyhow. Carlinal (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

brief clip, you know the original video is nearly 30 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfMsxjWgUbI&list=WL&index=1&t=3s Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to me. I just came to ask about a source and that's it. I do not care about clips, especially given that many commentators are taking clips OOC and I'm not taking any chances. Thanks. Carlinal (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Things like that are definitely not usable as a primary source for a wide variety of reasons; most obviously, given the context, inclusion would be clear WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in the sense that it guides the reader towards a conclusion not stated in the source. The purpose of WP:ABOUTSELF is not for editors to surface what they consider juicy scandals or quotes they find objectionable. And since these are quotes by real people, they would be WP:BLP issues on top of that. --Aquillion (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion in WT:BLPN talk thread Using primary sources for material that could harm someone's reputation, again, mentions this talk page and "An editor is arguing that they can be included under WP:ABOUTSELF." And Moon Darker on WP:DRN thread Sweet BabyInc. has mentioned most participants here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The Alyssa Mercante article should not be used as a source

Mercante has demonstrated via her interactions with SBI employees and other statements that she is not a neutral reporter of the facts, and thus her reporting should not be seen as a non-biased source of factual information. Android927 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Being nice to involved parties on social media does not make a journalist unreliable. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. (BLP violation removed), however, make you a terrible journalist, which is exactly what she did. 104.167.150.247 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, but siding with them outright certainly does. Android927 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a great example of why we don't use social media posts as sources - what the folks pointing at them say they mean is seldom found in the plain text of the post at issue. Also, by that standard reporters couldn't write about elections if they've ever voted. MrOllie (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

you are completely missing the point. It isn't about using these social media posts as sources for said article, it's the fact this article was sourced from bad-faith journalists whose behavior is well documented and contrary to their reporting. This wikipedia page shouldn't even exist with how awful these sources have proved themselves to be. 104.167.150.247 (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Everything about the controversy should be purged until a full picture is allowed to emerge. Otherwise, the fact that the very people that Wikipedia allows as "sources" are those comprising one side of the debate will in turn result in those people getting to shape the entire narrative surrounding this issue. Android927 (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue you are failing to see is that one side of this debate consists of journalists and those consumers that agree with them, while the other side consists *entirely* of consumers. Thus, by only allowing journalists to be used as sources, you are only allowing one side of the issue to be told. Android927 (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And if her tweet isn't expressly an admission that she is explicitly siding against the creator of the Steam curator group, then i am a fish. Android927 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely right, the journalists considered "reliable sources" here would stand entirely on one side on ideological and social circle grounds. While the sources that have been provided previously that speak out against SBI and Kotaku and their ilk have been dismissed unfairly as "opinions" or "blogs". CNN isn't going to stand with the steam curator who was harassed. That said the spj.org has a pretty neat code of ethics that is completely ignored by Kotaku... Lies of omission and lack of transparency abound. Especially on point like this "Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness" come up and Alyssa either stays silent (BLP violation removed) to anyone asking why she didnt cover Chris Kindred's tweets. 24.201.177.245 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That's because the sources are largely just opinions and blogs considered to be unreliable. IS that an unreasonable standard to have? Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is when its more researched than anything Alyssa wrote. With more proof than "we talked to SBI and they said they were harassed" and if something like this is an "opinion" at least the proof they do have up prove how much Alyssa... decided to omit. And you're not going to count that as a source I hope that at least it shows how Alyssa is unreliable. 24.201.177.245 (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not. In any case, there's more to a reference than just the opinions of its author. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It matters when journalists comprise one entire side of the issue in question. What you are doing is basically the equivalent of only allowing US government sources in an article about the Cold War, or only allowing Israeli sources in an article about the current Israel-Hamas war. Android927 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If we cared about WP:FALSEBALANCE, that would be a good argument! But we don't. We're not concerned about which side sources come from, only that they are published in a reliable fashion. MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe that it's very much fair to call into question the article as being Verifiable and Well-Cited as per the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources page, in which it states that Accepted reliable sources are Not to be considered infallible, and that they require being verifiable and well-cited, in which, the article is demonstrably neither, with plenty of evidence to the contrary, and should not be present within this article despite being a "Reliable Source". It's effectively a first hand account of a journalist who is emotionally and financially invested in the argument curating a piece to defend their interests, rather than take an objective, verifiable, and well-cited approach to the situation.

While the source is allowed to be biased, as per the rule, so long as it's presented on WP through a Neutral Point of View, the qualification to be a Reliable Source for citation, is not being met. I understand as editors it's not our place to do our own research or contest facts, but simply asking for an article to be verifiable and well cited is the very premise that, in another section of this talk page, "Keeps the Flat Earthers from running the show.", and as it currently is, the article is effectively of such quality and only serves to muddy the waters than to present a factual, neutral and objectively well cited and verifiable article for WP to cite.

Thus, I argue it's an unreliable source by the standards set up by the Reliable Sources page. Katacles (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So, you claim the reporter is emotionally and financially invested; what's to stop me from making the same claim about you? Dumuzid (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one writing articles being cited nor am I personally involved in this event, I'm not a first party source. If I were it'd be self reporting and that'd also violate the WP standards. Katacles (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You are quite correct in all of that; but my point is about ipse dixit accusations. If we can discount a source on editor say-so, we can certainly discount an editor based on editor say-so, no? Dumuzid (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal involvement as a primary source is stated as grounds for extra scrutiny in citation, even if not outright "Bad", however a secondary source can still observe the primary source and report upon it, and is generally preferred (Although is not inherently reliable).

Unlike a primary source stemming from a think tank who received money to conduct a study, and published their results in a scientific manner that can be observed, and hopefully repeated, a primary source on the topic of current events based around the concept of harassment, is a much murkier and harder to cite in good conscience given personal involvement. I'd cite outside reasons for this as well, but Wikipedia:No original research prevents pointing at a directly sourced timeline of events without opinion, which is fine to a degree, but often hinders scrutinizing primary sources involving individuals being talked about. Katacles (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I do apologize for my loaded language and carelessness with accusations, it muddied my intent and citation and I've learned a lesson here. Katacles (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. The Wikipedia article must be verifiable and well cited. We do not require our sources themselves to cite every claim, disclose all their sources, or otherwise 'show their work'. If we did, we couldn't cite a scientific journal that reported on experimentation or a mathematics journal that gave an original proof. MrOllie (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the FAQ on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources it refers to the "Reliable source", not the article, as requiring being verifiable and well-cited. "Verifiable", as far as I understand on Wikipedia, means published by a "Reliable Source", however in the same FAQ it states that no source is always reliable, and I quote

"The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual."

I understand and respect the policy on biased articles, however given the first party involvement of the author, and the lack of being a well-cited article, I simply believe that although it's often a "Reliable Source", in this case, should not be used. If Kotaku writes another article with better citation, and a third party as author, then I'd find it less contentious and conflicting with WP standards.

While it's not up to us to seek "Truth", Verifiability, not truth the example given is that of a courtroom with admitted evidence, it's not up to the "Jury" to play investigator and smuggle in evidence, but some level of scrutiny should still exist and primary sources involved in a contentious topic should be scrutinized more so, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources in which primary sources are not inherently bad, but are cautioned against.

All in all, I think it's reckless to accept a primary source from an involved individual on a hot topic that is quickly a cultural and political debate, without invoking Wikipedia:No original research against myself for citing personal statements and observed timelines and interactions with the events that took place. I'm not denying the source from publishing on the event, I am saying that this particular primary source is notably unreliable due to personally being a major part of the topic at hand. I'd also contest Fox News reporting on the treatment of one of their own Anchors and a benefactor, and would prefer a secondary source, and unlike a published research paper by a think tank that was based on a left or right ideal but came to a conclusion that can be observed and repeated and cited by secondary sources. Katacles (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm telling you, you are misreading. Those statements are about the content of Wikipedia articles, not sources. MrOllie (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede the verifiability part of the argument to mean what WP states as Verifiability, not truth, but the part of the FAQ that explicitly states

Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?

No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.

Requires a serious rewrite if that's not telling editors to have scrutiny over an article based on basic standards (In contrast to original research and "I feel" or "I know") that should be upheld even by WP editors. Pair that with the page on primary sources stating reasons to have scrutiny. Obviously if it's a sitewide policy issue, the argument should be taken elsewhere (I have been pointed to the appropriate page for it), but as it reads and within the spirit of editing, it appears it should be applying some level of acceptability from cited sources beyond merely that it's published on the right site. When dubious sources like Media Matters gets the go ahead, it makes me wonder where the line is for acceptability when "Mixed" sources are approved or disapproved, rather than blanket accepted/disapproved. Katacles (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of factors, but a lot of that 'context' is about what is being cited. We wouldn't cite NBC for detailed medical information, but they're perfectly fine for current events or politics. Kotaku is a gaming site, this context is where they are most reliable. If you find them being cited for astrophysics or something, we can talk. MrOllie (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

While it's gaming adjacent, the article in question is a primary source talking about social harassment they're personally involved in. As a primary source, the "Context" becomes much more worth scrutiny. If they were the secondary source reporting on harassment at an E-sport tournament, there'd be less reason to scrutinize as it'd be within video gaming solely and be a secondary, uninvolved source observing and reporting.

Without invoking Wikipedia:No original research I think that it's well within grounds of editors to scrutinize on the grounds of it being an involved, primary source on a social topic that is hotly contested. Especially when sources of mixed reliability without specialization on the topic are being given the green light in the same article, while other mixed reliability with specialization are being denied, citations end up being at the whim of the editor more so than any core principle or standard and appears to be curation, over semblance of reliability. Katacles (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A primary source would be the social media posts Kotaku was writing about. Kotaku is a secondary source. MrOllie (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are you even including the Gamestar.de-article as a source? I'm from Germany myself, the GameStar-article adds zero new content, it's just a German version of the Kotaku-article, and just as one-sided. On top of that, it includes an ad authority-paragraph citing the "Amadeu Antonio Stiftung", which has long come under criticism ( https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/plus243877223/Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung-Denunzieren-und-zersetzen-alles-zum-Wohle-der-Gesellschaft.html ).

Just because you cite the same content from websites in different languages doesn't add to the validity of the accusations.

Note that neither Gamestar nor Kotaku mention the primary sources for the criticism against SBI. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources are not required to cite primary sources. I have no idea what the "ad authority-paragraph" has to do with anything, but you have a problem with Gamestar being use as a RS generally, I suggest you take that to WP:RSN and better explain the reason. As for the claim the GameStar is simply a translation of the Kotaku article, that would indeed mean it shouldn't be used as an additional source. But I'd like to hear this from some other editor first. Note that there is a big difference between a simple translation, and a re-report based on another source. Also if the GameStar article is indeed simply a translation then while we shouldn't use the the reliability of GameStar is largely irrelevant so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Not only does it not create new points, just re-reporting what Kotaku did in German; it's also a terribly biased article in general, painting the critics of SBI as rightwing as a "hate group":

"Diese Gruppen bedienen sich meistens rechten bis rechtsextremen Narrativen und schrecken nicht vor Drohungen gegen bestimmte Personen oder Studios zurück."

"Sweet Baby Inc ist aktuell das Ziel einer weitreichenden Hass-Kampagne, die an die GamerGate-Bewegung erinnert"

And at the end of the article, SBI staff Chris Kindred is entirely being absolved from the harassment HE committed against the critics of SBI, saying "he put his profile to private to escape the hate". "Hate" being nothing but valid criticism here.

It's disappointing that Wikipedia would use such low-quality articles as a source. Gamestar even published the article anonymously, without naming its author. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Fact is, proof that 'shows her work' exists and it doesnt paint Alyssa as a reliable, ethical journalist. Logs of her talking to her 'source' when she 'infiltrated' the discord. Was informed of the Chris Kindred tweets and decided to just not talk about it on her totally 'reliable' smear campaign and Puff-piece... But those, just like sources that go against the allowed vitriol are probably not good enough to disqualify what is essentially an advertorial for Sweet Baby. 24.201.177.245 (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That page literally starts off by says that "it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic." This topic has two significant viewpoints, and one is not being accounted for. Android927 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It literally starts off with While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.. Don't cherry pick quotes, please. MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim to have the second half of a dispute cited.

If a citation starts to talk about the lizard people in governments funding them, then it'd be fringe and a view held by the minority. The articles that have been denied have, to some degree, demonstrated integrity in documenting primary sources, timelines, and reporting on the situation factually as observed, and a source of mixed reliability, that demonstrates specialty in the field it's talking about, and demonstrates a well cited and factually based article with documentation, should be accepted for the sake of creating a full, well-cited article.

When there's two sides involved, we're looking at the two majority sides, we're not trying to determine who's right or wrong based on original research, we're taking published articles on a subject, contextually identifying specialty on the topic (Should this source be discussing this topic?), and then consider if the article itself otherwise raises objections based on integrity, rather than if it falls on one of two sides. Katacles (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, one side of this issue is represented more in fringe sites, personal blogs, and sources considered unreliable like Breitbart and Game8. No matter how much you think they've done their due diligence in terms of journalistic integrity, coming from those sorts of places is a nonstarter here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

On the FAQ on Reliable/Unreliable sources, it states to seek context when citing a source for it's reliability. Shutting out an entire half of a discussion while citing a primary source personally involved in the topic, but flatly refusing any of the opposing half of the conversation, feels far more like curation over proper scrutiny. Katacles (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not compromise on sourcing standards to get to WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The majorities and minorities are evaluated in terms of representation in the reliable sources, not number of postings on social media or opinion polling. Something like 1/4 of the population still believes vaccines cause autism, but we don't give that view any space in medical articles. MrOllie (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Comparing obscure fringe theories without any factual basis to events that many witnessed with their own eyes and can be fact-checked in a matter of minutes is a stretch.

• Vaccine fairy tails are not supported by a majority of scientists and are based on badly processed data if anything at all. "Something like 1/4 of the population still believes" in those.
• Kotaku's version of events is not supported by a majority of gamers and is based on badly processed data if anything at all. "Something like 5,6/100 of the population* still believes" in it.**

* - this number will be somewhat a lot lower within the gaming community.

** - at this point enough journalists have covered it from both sides. The timing of Kotaku's article can only prove lack of research compared to other neutral and non-neutral sources which covered this situation at later points in time. Gaming is not an exact science, majority of gamers are by definition experts in gaming - their opinion defines the whole field (in relation to assessment of recently released games) and statements by Sweet Baby Inc. employees suggest that gamers are correct.

--Moon darker (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were based on polling (a majority of gamers - and if you could actually support that) you'd have a great argument! But as I just said, that is not how Wikipedia works. MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Much thanks. I'll think of a way to fix lack of data first thing when I wake up, have a good one :) --Moon darker (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

We honestly don't care what "a majority of gamers" think, to be quite honest. Plus, I'm willing to bet that the majority of gamers aren't even aware of this matter. The people who care about it are a small, loud group who've bought into a conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Dismissing an entire half of a contested argument as a "Small, loud group who've bought into a conspiracy theory" is not in the interest of anything with a semblance of trying to create a well cited article. Effectively the biggest barrier here is the Wikipedia:No original research rule which refutes the reliable source reporting, although I understand the rule, we're currently discussing a topic where journalists are in a fight and reporting from their sources against people without access to such outlets, creating an infuriating position for Wikipedia.

It's fine to be biased and to have an opinion but to flatly dismiss the entirety of one half as conspiracy theorists is a level of bias I think should be purged off of editing Wikipedia, and it's not like Vaccines or flat earth which is a false equivalence and an attempted guilt by association, since this is a social event between people having a conflict, and not people misinterpreting data and fabricating data, there's primary sources that can be observed, traced, catalogued, compiled and put into a nice timeline that's objectively true and can be referenced, however it either constitutes original research (Not allowed) or it is posted on sources considered mixed or unreliable, even if I feel the way reliability is judged can be affected by bias where people seek "Truth" despite that not being the point of Wikipedia, as per Verifiability, not truth, resulting in the frustrated mess that is this talk page. Katacles (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare this controversy to vaccines or flat earth myself, but it is seen (by both sides here) in the same vein as Gamergate (harassment campaign) and is being judged as such. As said before, this is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This is very simple. Wikipedia has had a definition of reliable sources and how they are to be used for roughly two decades. Maybe you think that's terrible, and it's fine if you do! There are other places to disseminate one's views and ways in which the reliable sources might be affected, and through them Wikipedia. But for the time being, the special pleading of "the journalists are totally wrong here, you have to take my word for it" is just not all that persuasive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In regard to sources being seen as unreliable, I'd encourage anyone to discuss it and try to get any relevant sources approved or unapproved in the appropriate places.

I do think there can be bias . Gaming media does tend to lean one way politically, outlets may hire likeminded people, and press likely have to keep a good relationship with the gaming industry for access. On top of that, I've seen some Wikipedia editors dismiss sources as unreliable using the writer's inflammatory opinion on issues as rationale or use dubious tactics such as saying certain facts presented are incorrect, despite a lack of evidence and other sources agreeing.

That said, it's somewhat like the quote about democracy being the best of a number of terrible systems. In most cases, it works fine and it prevents the difficulties around editors not being able to verify primary sources (which a reliable secondary source should be able to) and other issues around this. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Not in medical articles, but the theory itself does have an entire article (despite having no basis in fact). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The point being that even that article does not present both 'sides' of the argument as possibilities, because that is not what the reliable sources do. MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased; see WP:BIASED. Otherwise, anyone could dismiss any source simply by disagreeing with its conclusions - someone could say "show me one source that says X"; and, when presented with a source that says X, they could just say "ah, but that's written by someone who believes X, therefore they're biased." --Aquillion (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The harassment campaign started on 4chan, not Kiwi Farms.

Looking at the Kiwi Farms thread, the entire 1st page is just screenshots of the /v/ board on 4chan. 86.42.91.198 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably but we can't add it unless the news reports on it Trade (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Omg.

"1 plus 1 is 2"

Wiki editors: "We cannot publish this unless Kotaku reports on it."

Excuse my sarcasm, but Wikipedia is in dire need of a rule update if OBVIOUS facts cannot be included in articles if no outlet has talked about them. This gives SO MUCH power to bad actors. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think a better solution is to reexamine these sources as "reliable" under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. It's sad that these sources are still relied on after about a decade of failed fact checks and malicious hit-pieces masquerading a journalism, but change has to come from the top. 104.167.150.247 (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Look up "Verifiability" Trade (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources were to verifiably deny the claim that 1 + 1 = 2 then Wikipedia would do so too regardless of the opinion of the common folk. ADroughtOfVowels (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's so obvious, cite a source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This right here is my exact criticism of Verifiability, not truth, and in particular, the attitude around it. On one hand I understand dissuading original research because that's a whole can of worms, but on the other hand it leads to situations like this where an article will point directly at evidence, and then write something wrong despite linking the evidence, and you can only put the incorrect information on wikipedia despite the article having proof to the contrary. More people need to be invested in looking at wikipedia:RSN and trying to argue for/against reliability of sources there, since the problem almost always seems to swing back to "Reliable source is factually wrong even with their own citation they point to, but they're a reliable source so their wrongness is all we can report on, unreliable source is factually right with their own citation, but are unreliable, thus have no place here." and some of the things that got a source marked as Reliable or Unreliable are nearly a decade old and should be reevaluated, hence, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is where such things should be debated and discussed in order to rectify what so many people don't understand about how Wikipedia works.

Again, Wikipedia:No original research means Verifiability, not truth and thus, frustratingly, hinges entirely on reliable sources, much of which do not get debated and checked for policies and oversight, and people try to challenge it on Talk pages instead of where they should. People need to understand that Wikipedia is not Truth, just a culmination of what is reported, and the general oversight and discussion on reliability of sources is not engaged in enough, resulting in talk pages like this, where people fight the wrong battles on the wrong grounds. Katacles (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Except this has nothing to do with source reliability. When sources do frequently put out incorrect information, they appropriately get downgraded in RSN discussions. Hence why the Daily Mail was deprecated so long ago, as they openly fabricated stories for clicks. Here, there's nothing about sources putting out wrong information. Not covering some specific piece of information is not the same thing. Especially in a situation where it's not that the sources are wrong, it's that some people just don't like or disagree with what they are saying. But that doesn't mean the source is wrong. Silverseren^C 05:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia:No original research territory to say if it's being accurate or not, or if it's getting everything relevant or not. Kotaku has very often had opinion articles touted as news and very often gotten things wrong with little retraction policy, but, that's not the point I'm making here, some of the sources that people have been trying to add to this page have been marked unreliable 10 years ago, but have since then improved their standards to be compliant with what constitutes a "Reliable Source" by Wikipedia standards, and have demonstrated editorial integrity by retracting incorrect information and issuing corrections, in which, the discussion to reevaluate it should be open, but people don't know where to debate it, and instead fight it out on Talk pages like this. Katacles (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard not already cover what you're alluding to when it comes to debating the reliability of sources? I don't know any example of a once-unreliable source being reevaluated as reliable, though I could be wrong of course. What are these sources you're alluding to anyway? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sweet Baby Inc.'s Wikipedia page is missing key facts – here’s the unbiased context

For the interested. Afaict, it's a WP:BLOG, so I wont add a "this article has been mentioned by a media organization" template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I see there's a related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Shortcut:_reliable_source?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That article itself is full of holes. For one, as we've already discussed First, the group did not fail Steam’s code of conduct, which is evidenced by the fact it’s still live. is a non-starter, it did fall afoul of the CoC, then they removed the offending content and were allowed to stay up.

I don't currently have time to deal with the rest of it, but it mostly rehashes debates we've already had here, and uses "sources" we can't (screenshots of emails & social media posts). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a side-note: the part that you've covered in the first paragraph has been changed a few days ago with appropriate explanations regarding user-generated nature of the offending content, so this part of the post in question is not relevant at this point. Cheers :) Moon darker (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

When the group was founded, it used a red circle/cross icon over the logo for Sweet Baby, which combined with the statements, could easily be seen as violates Steam's terms as disrespectful content that targeted SBI and not simply highlighting its games as other curator groups do (this can be seen in the tweet screenshots). The image now is just the SBI logo without the "NO" icon in addition to the scrubbing of the forum contents. Masem (t) 17:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page size and archiving

Talk page size is starting to get pretty large. Per the talk page guidelines we should start looking at archiving at around 75KB in page size or when there are "numerous" resolved/stale discussions. The page size is currently just shy of 250KB. I don't have any strong preferences about whether that's done by MiszaBot/Lowercase SigmaBot or ClueBot, so I'll defer the actual archive tagging to someone who has opinions on which to use, but we probably should do it fairly soon. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I set up auto-archiving back on the 12th. It's currently set for archiving after 30 days of inactivity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe 7 days would be better for now due to the activity of this talk page? Silverseren^C 16:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

We could 7 days it, but it wouldn't remove any threads immediately as the current oldest is 4 days of no activity. I am going to one-click-archive the couple of NOTFORUM hatted posts now though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Moved 4 threads, two answered edit requests and two hatted NOTFORUM posts. Still leaves 225kb in length though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh nice, I totally missed that you'd already done that. Thanks Sideswipe9th. I'd suspect either 7 or 10 days is probably an OK auto-archive duration here, yeah we'd be at ~225 for a few more days until that kicks in but that's not the end of the world. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

+1. And when things calm down, it can be set to the usual 30. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've just changed it to 7 days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Kim Belair image

Asking if we should add an image of Kim Belair herself since she's the CEO and is the genesis of the company's drive. I found a preserved image from the Complications Ensue blog (which had a 4-part interview with her but got removed for not being an independent source), from September 7, 2020. Carlinal (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you figure it's released for free-content use? Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't. I already assumed this could be done under a fair use license anyhow. Carlinal (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair use for images of living individuals is all but impossible. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And even in cases where it would be possible, it would only be in biography articles actually about the person. Silverseren^C 17:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you both. Carlinal (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok so I gave the blog page a second look and found "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License" under a book, but I'm not sure what the licensing is referring to. Carlinal (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not the image in question. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License" And based on that statement alone, there's no guarantee it's compatible with CC-BY-SA, specifically. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(BLP violation removed)

This source has already been discussed on multiple threads (see this and this thread). Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

So, as I am not able to edit the Article, and as we have (finally) the {{POV}} in there, maybe we should include sources that show that SBI itself is on the harrasment train. - Kindred calls Steam Group "Nazis" or is that not reliable enough? Adtonko (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Can you explain why That Park Place would count as a reliable source? It seems to be a WordPress blog site, even if it has multiple contributors. SilverserenC 20:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Well, Kotaku itself is build on a blog plattform, so to dismiss another Source as 'a blog' seems cherry picking to me. As why it should be considered reliable, you have said your self. Multiple authors, and as a matter of fact, they form a timeline of events from primary sources, that we are not allowed to. Adtonko (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Kotaku describes itself as "a news and opinion site about games and things serious gamers care about." Furthermore, on its about page it lists a staff including editors. That is not typical of a blog to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Also, as mentioned above, the particular Kotaku piece we're citing here has massive WP:USEBYOTHERS in that it's treated as reliable by a wide range of high-quality sources. That's one of the ways we distinguish a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) That's not how reliable sources are determined here, otherwise anyone could set up a website with a couple of friends and say they are a reliable news source. One of the main requirements is to have an editorial fact checking board with a history of proper news coverage. It's why The Daily Dot wasn't accepted as a reliable news source initially on Wikipedia and only reached that level of reliability after a few years of existence. One thing that does help is if the source is referenced and utilized by other known sources for its coverage. Such as how The Daily Dot started being referenced by actual newspapers and television media in the things it covered. SilverserenC 21:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Reliability is about having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as demonstrated by eg. WP:USEBYOTHERS, which isn't present here. On top of that... at a glance, isn't the editor-in-chief there also the original editor-in-chief of Bounding into Comics, a similar site with no reputation that was created around the time of Gamergate to advocate for what became Comicsgate? As WP:RS says, we can't simply take a site's claims of reliability at face-value - anyone can create a site and claim to be an expert. That said, it might be worth taking both sites to WP:RSN to get a formal WP:RSP entry, since the latter has come up a lot and the former is likely to come up a lot going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd wording

"with attention drawn towards Sweet Baby and it's employees by high-profile, far right accounts including Elon Musk and Libs of TikTok." This might lead others to think that Musk is far-right, an exceptional claim not explicitly verified by the source. Could it be worded in another way? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 15:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• As I added that from the new source, I took it out since you are right (the source id's LoTT as far right but not Musk) Masem (t) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the man keeps promoting white genocide conspiracy theory all the time, but it's true we can't label him as such in Wikivoice without a source. And that's a can of worms to be dealt with on Talk:Elon Musk, not here. Removing it from this article is the right call. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yea; just to clarify, I was not trying to defend him or anything, I was just requesting here so that the article follows the source (I was a bit in a rush). ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 21:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

NOTFORUM.
You calling it a "conspiracy theory" does not automatically make it a conspiracy, especially since the overwhelming majority of "conspiracies" in the last 10 years have all come true This article is clearly one-sided and shilling for SBI. Acknowledge the SBI employee started the harassment campaign against the curator group. 2600:1700:22ED:9A0:1144:D559:5634:40EA (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Game8 actually an unreliable source?

I've seen a number of editors on this page automatically dismiss Game8 saying it's unreliable or 'looks like a blog'. It seems to me that it's being dismissed without any significant discussion on it.

I can only see one past discussion on the topic it where the single editor replying claiming it "Smells awry" seemingly hasn't looked into it much. Their only comment against is asking why it's in English while claiming it's one of Japan's top sites, while the linked claim specifically notes that this is their "English site" (implying they have a Japanese site too which they do).

They're often one of the top results for walkthroughs and guides, claim 60,000,000 page views per month, has somewhat of an editorial policy, offer paid positions, and have multiple listed authors on their English site, are seemingly set up as a company (LinkedIn claims 51-200 and it has HR/Admin/etc), and quite a few industry interviews on the Japanese (and at least one significant one with Tetsuya Nomura of Final Fantasy fame on the English site).

It may or may not be considered as reliable, but this is no small blog to easily dismiss without looking further at least. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not exactly convinced that it's the best source for controversial claims. I mostly wanted to make it as a point of order that sources should be properly evaluated and not immediately dismissed or claimed as unreliable, particularly if they're going against the more widely supported narrative. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

So, for me, I would still say unreliable for news content and BLPs, as everything seems to indicate the primary focus of the site is reviews and walkthroughs (for instance, this page about the operating company[3]). The page you link to as an editorial policy is more like a review rubric to me. As stated at WP:RS, In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. I see little to no evidence of those categories here. I could see a case for citing to Game8 for reviews (or possibly walkthroughs, though I can't imagine a case for that at the moment), but I would still say for me it's a no as to fact reporting and certainly for BLPs. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Somewhat of an editorial policy" is not a glowing endorsement. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not! But some experienced editors are arguing to add a website with former Kotaku staff and no editorial policy as reliable, so it's presumably not something that rules it out completely.

Plus, as my comment said, 'I'm not exactly convinced that it's the best source for controversial claims. I mostly wanted to make it as a point of order that sources should be properly evaluated and not immediately dismissed or claimed as unreliable'. This was primarily posted as I was seeing people immediately dismiss it or think it's some random blog, when they should at least evaluate it before dismissing. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean [4] their about page is rather more inspiring of confidence than Game8 - which appears to be a game walkthrough site rather than a worker-owned media outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

According to whois data, Aftermath was registered around 6 months ago. Almost no followers in social media compared to other news outlets. About page is not everything, you are free to write anything there. Any reliable sources to confirm what they're saying there? --Moon darker (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's no secret that Aftermath is relatively new; the site's creation last year was covered by several outlets. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been some WP:USEBYOTHERS pickup of the Aftermath, especially with regard to the exit of Kotaku's last editor-in-chief. It was cited by gamesindustry.biz[5]; Video Games Chronicle[6]; and The Daily Beast[7]. Dumuzid (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but I also know the names of the people who founded Aftermath and they're all well-established journalists.Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Let us try and get back to track here

SPA's and IP's decrying bias and complaining about the websites used as references aside is there any issues with the article that needs to be adressed? I hope there aren't any major obstacles for the article becoming an GA in the future Trade (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The current state of the article seems good to me given the current sources available, but I think it is likely higher-quality academic sources will appear in the future; we will probably want to come back and rewrite parts of the article at that point. --Aquillion (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)