Opothleyahola

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Internet culture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

This is a mischaracterization of what actually happened that omits important context. The employee in question specifically tried to enact retribution on the creator of the Steam group by asking people to mass-report him in an attempt to get his Steam account banned. This was deemed to be targeted harassment according X's TOS and the employee's X account was temporarily banned as a result. Android927 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Do you have any reliable sources we can use to include this in the article? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there you touch upon the heart of the issue: Alyssa Mercante and her fellow journalists will *never* report on Kindred's tweets because it is not in their interests to do so, yet you will not allow his own words to be cited as a source until one of them reports on it. You are basically letting one side of a hotly debated issue to entirely control the narrative by allowing them to gatekeep what information can and cannot be used as a citation. Android927 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, buddy, got any sources for it, then? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and Mercotte alleges harassment. of which she is unable to provide proof of who sent it or if it was sent at all.

kindred's tweets are here.

https://ibb.co/hXWkjws

https://ibb.co/0Bq66ww

https://ibb.co/rcStJSL

https://ibb.co/f1wQQLw

https://ibb.co/WDgBy6x

https://ibb.co/jJQptFV

https://ibb.co/ctt4H4w

https://ibb.co/stQ4cSD

https://ibb.co/5Y2QP2C MisteOsoTruth (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion here about Wikipedia itself. What happens when this is a niche topic (like online gaming contraversy) and all the reliable sources (gaming journalists) are themselves being criticized? How would information of that kind ever make it onto a Wikipedia page?

The topic that I'm most interested in is the accusation that gaming journalists are being in league with Sweet Baby; gaming journalists are omitting facts and covering only details that is beneficial to Sweet Baby. This is actually more interesting topic than the anti-woke currently written in the section "Online backlash and harassment".

For example, "The curator group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for failing Steam's code of conduct." is actually misleading, as this curator group had no attention at all, and it is the Sweet Baby employee's tweet itself that garnered all the attention. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/sweet-baby-inc-detected-controversy (Yes, KnowYourMeme is not a reliable source.)

In the end, I think perhaps the whole section of "Online backlash and harassment" might be marked with WP:N as it doesn't seem like any non-gaming journalist seems interested in covering this topic, and that the raw evidence is on twitter, and twitter posts are ephemeral and can be deleted (and only secondary evidence, like screenshots, can be preserved).

Also, kudos to you Rhain for your diligence. Goose (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N does not apply to sections, only whole articles. During GamerGate pt1 we saw a lot of this notion that if one 'side' of a dispute attacked journalism, that means Wikipedia could then not use journalists as a source. Since then, the same attacks have become extremely common in all kinds of political discourse (think of people who say 'Lamestream media'). But buying into that notion is untenable, one cannot silence critical sources just by making attacks on any journalist who writes something one disapproves of. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making an assumption that journalists are colliding with SBI here, but we first off don't work that way, and more importantly it is likely journalists, previously burned on "it's about ethics in video game journalism" from GG, are making a stance again from another vector out of the 4chan/8chan/Kiwi Farms venues that fester far right concepts, implicitly making SBI the side they trust to start with. And there is little I can see in both reliable and unreliable sources that suggest the larger picture is much different than what the RSes are saying. The counter narrative, that SBI was specifically formed to force diversity into games, has been shown clearly to be quotes taken out of context and what SBI actually does verified independently by game devs. It's really hard to find any type of appropriate lining here for the opposite side since unlike GG, all of what's been covered is out in the open. — Masem (t) 23:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and what of an archive link? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have primary sources in the form of Chris Kindred's social media posts, but apparently primary sources aren't accepted here. Android927 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://ibb.co/hXWkjws

https://ibb.co/0Bq66ww

https://ibb.co/rcStJSL

https://ibb.co/f1wQQLw

https://ibb.co/WDgBy6x

https://ibb.co/jJQptFV

https://ibb.co/ctt4H4w

https://ibb.co/stQ4cSD

https://ibb.co/5Y2QP2C MisteOsoTruth (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.ph/Oiqyb Kaijyuu2016 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Niche Gamer is considered unreliable per WP:VG/S. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is Kotaku and it's still here despite the article clearly being biased. You’re just as biased. Kaijyuu2016 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kotaku is not considered unreliable per WP:VG/S. If you have issues with my conduct wrt NPOV, take it to WP:POVN or WP:ANI. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these work for you? Kaijyuu2016 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that Mercante is the SENIOR EDITOR right?

She decided what gets published.

Not really an unbiased person and shouldnt be taken as a reliable source. Selo007 (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you've made your opinion on this very clear. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SBI Employee directly saying it on Twitter is a reliable primary source 122.213.236.124 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It actually isn't, for several reasons. For one thing, the post above characterizes it as harassment, which is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim (and WP:BLP-sensitive in this context, since it's being applied to a specific living person.) That means it would require a secondary source; the one secondary source that does directly mention the tweet in question indicates that the concerns that Steam's policies were being violated were valid, and another source notes that the group had to clean things up after Steam contacted them, which likewise implies they were in violation. Ultimately we rely on secondary sources to interpret primary sources in order to resolve this problem; and the secondary sources support the text we currently have. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I will say, ignoring all the other aspects going around, I do think we should try to legitimately source the facts through reliable soruces that 1) the initial tweets of the one SBI employee to call out the steam curator group did end up being treated as harassment by X and thus led to the account being blocked, 2) at least one other SBI followed up without engaging in harassment to try to urge followers to report the group to Valve, 3) that attention from multiple SBI employees increased the groups numbers by 10-fold (a type of Streisand effect) and 4) the founder of the curator group did respond to Valve's warnings to remove most of the forum posts and otherwise took steps to bring the curator group into compliance with Steam's AUP, and also 5) created a situation that started running through social media and leading to journalistic interest in it. The Mary Sue article somewhat gets to all these points but not all of them. All those are reasonable neutral facts that explain why we have a section now on the SBI page to explain a controversy. But as reiterated over this page, we need non-first party reliable sources that explicitly say this, no random connecting-the-dots, I just don't think that once we find sources for those, this type of detailing of the timeline is a neutrality problem. --Masem (t) 04:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, 4 is already mentioned (albeit briefly) and I've expanded 1. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do not think that that is enough (and I think that this is a clear-cut BLP issue; Gry Online may be usable for videogame trivia, but looking over it, I think that it is bluntly clear that it is not sufficient for something highly BLP-sensitive like this.) Even without a name, it is obvious that the individual written here is a potential target, meaning the risk of harm to their reputation is extremely high; higher-quality sources are necessary. If you absolutely think Gry Online is sufficiently high quality for this we can take it to WP:RSN, but please don't restore it here with just that source alone. I hold by my previous statement that still we don't have enough sourcing to mention this aspect at all and have to approach it carefully, but in this aspect in particular we would need better sourcing than one line from a single source that is only VGRS. --Aquillion (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was clear above that while these element should be so thing we should strive to include as neutral facets of the issue, we need RSes to explicitly say that before we can include. I agree with the questionable nature of that Gry source. Masem (t) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are we going to at least point out the fact that the user who called out this steam curator group got banned for harassment on X? Idk about you but that should be mentioned in their wiki because that's pretty crucial and very literal information regardless of what side or stance you have in this situation. This is pretty common knowledge that everyone can agree happened, and not including it shows your bias in the situation. And might lead people to believe you're defending one side by keeping the page vague. We're not trying to force a particular narrative on Wikipedia, we just want people to know the facts, and then they can do their own digging and form their own opinion from there. I understand that this situation is a bit sensitive and it's hard to tell what information to trust, but there is real proof of Sweet Baby Inc employees causing misconduct from simple research. AnonymouEevee (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this "we"? Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The employee's Twitter account being blocked for that is such a tiny part of the larger story, and yet I see so many in trying to defend the curator group and those arguing against SBI, claiming this is a huge part of the story because to them, it appears to be a "win" that this employees' account "attacked" the curator account and thus trying to justify that SBI harassed them, just as much as others have been harassing SBI and thus making it a "both sides equal" story. Yes, the employee's tweet likely violated Twitter's TOS by linking the different accounts, but other SBI employees pointed out the group without any effects, so that really is a trivial factor that, unless reported by RS sources, is something we aren't going to force into the article. Masem (t) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"we" meaning everyone else in this comment section saying exactly what I'm trying to point out. But are missing the mark

Also, no, including the fact that Chris Kindred was banned on X should be noted because it's a pretty big story right now, and a lot of people are talking about it. At least acknowledging that fact should be enough info to encourage the reader to do digging into the situation if they wish too and form their own opinion. Not including this makes people think that there is no drama and that Sweet Baby Inc has a completely clean image. The allegations of racism from the employees should also be noted because it's also being talked about, and again not mentioning it on the wiki gives people the false impression that they have a clean image and that there's no controversy. Which is why people are coming to these comment sections to make sure people know about what others are saying about this company AnonymouEevee (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Its a big story" only appears to apply to the groups and forum that are critical of SBI's work including the curator group. It is clear that the sum of all SBI employees' tweets created a Streisand effect that drew members to the group, which we do have documented, but simply because one of them was blocked doesn't matter to that point.

As well as the claims of racism, which have been disproven by independent reporters to show that the basis for these claims of racism have been take way out of context, and part of the conspiracy theories that have been attributed to the curator group and other forums. Masem (t) 16:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I would also add that "it's a pretty big story right now" should be an indication of caution rather than inclusion. Wikipedia is not newsmedia and it is likely far to early to determine if Chris Kindred getting kicked off a dying social media web page has even a smidge of encyclopedic relevance. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is a big story because a very loud majority of gamers have expressed their criticism for this group, and the criticism should be noted. Silencing these people shows a clear bias, and also damages Wikipedia's reputation. Someone's going to hear about whats going on and they're going to read this one sided wikipedia article and logically take it all as fact without doing any research. Which is why it's important to list the other side so people can form their own opinion and not what one side says. Also, Wikipedia doesnt have to be news media to show that a lot of people have been critical of sweet baby inc, and can reveal the reason for such. But they choose only to show one side, calling the other side harrassers instead of revealing that forced diversity was involved, the very thing the people were complaining about. Furthermore, no the screenshots of white racism were not taken out of context. A lot of the comments were deleted to create plausible deniability, but screenshots exist proving they did indeed happen. And its important to note what sbi employees are doing because it gives insight on who manages this company because it tells people who exactly is making their games and whether they should support the games they work on. And not showing this further proves Wikipedia's bias and that they're supporting one side. AnonymouEevee (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make articles or include content on Wikipedia just because there's a vocal group of people complaining about something. If Qanon hadn't received any news coverage, we wouldn't have an article on it either. Silverseren^C 17:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silverseren is correct, Wikipedia editors don't write articles based on who is being loud online. I'll also add that this is a request for WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is something the Wikipedia community has specifically rejected. Wikipedia does not give equal validity to 'sides' of a dispute, it follows along with whatever the reliable sources do. You also might want to have a look at WP:YESBIAS. MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it further proves my point that Wikipedia is a biased source. Their policies only supports secondary sources over first hand sources and accounts, which is why it's gradually becoming unreliable for a lot of people. It benefits triple a game journalists who don't care about games, over people who are truly passionate for the games they play and want their voices to be heard about what they want for the markey. This is the last time I'm going to reply because this debate will ultimately go nowhere due to Wikipedia's policies, but I'm glad I was at least able to contribute to this conversation for onlookers. Hopefully people will boycott this sight and discourage others from using this as a first hand source of info AnonymouEevee (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A majority according to who? Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is "gradually becoming unreliable for a lot of people" due to policies which have been in place from the beginning, then I guess it's about time? People should really be more aware of what they consume, I suppose. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Baby_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=1214046582

@Sideswipe9th: Ok so why must this content by removed? Gry-Online is a reliable source. Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- FMSky (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed on 13 March by Aquillion with the reason "don't think this source alone is enough for something plainly BLP-sensitive". That's a good faith BLP removal by any definition of WP:BLPRESTORE, and you've restored it twice now without any significant changes. I've no opinion right now on whether it should be restored or not, I'm just pointing out that policy prevents its restoration until an affirmative consensus is gained for it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "policy" also prevents using "claimed" but that didnt stop you from re-inserting it anyway https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Baby_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=1214047033 --FMSky (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CLAIMED is a guideline that does not prevent us from using the word claimed in articles where it is appropriate, it simply advises us to exercise caution when using it because the word can imply a statement is not credible. We are allowed to use that word whenever reliable sources use the same degree of scepticism about a claim, which they do in this instance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also are you saying that WP:BLP is not a policy? Because the very first banner on it states "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attacks removed) Mechabot5 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source covering it https://www.theshortcut.com/p/sweet-baby-inc-detected-what-actually-happened That should be enough to include it --FMSky (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Shortcut seems to be an unreliable source, per an ongoing discussion at RSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

another one: https://thatparkplace.com/sweet-baby-inc-employee-begs-followers-to-report-steam-curator-that-tracks-sweet-baby-inc-s-involvement-in-video-games/

Im still waiting for an explanation for why Gry-Online is unreliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it already said earlier here that That Park Place is unreliable? Carlinal (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago I said the following about That Park Place on this talk page: That Park Place doesn't appear to be a reliable source. At best it's a group blog, and it doesn't seem to have any editorial oversight of what is published on it, which is required per WP:RS/WP:QUESTIONABLE.

And I'll add, although it hasn't been discussed at RSN or WT:VG/S, I would strongly suspect That Park Place would never be considered a reliable source, let alone for a BLP claim, given the tone and type of content it publishes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im still waiting for an explanation for why Gry-Online is unreliable Per WP:VG/S Gry OnLine is considered a reliable source, however that's not the issue here. The issue that Aquillion raised was that the Gry OnLine source on its own was not a strong enough source for content that is plainly BLP-sensitive. That's a good-faith BLP objection to the content, and the BLPRESTORE policy point tells us that content that is removed on good-faith BLP objections cannot be restored without a consensus for it. Per WP:ONUS you need to demonstrate why this content should be included, as the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is considered reliable, it means its also reliable for content that is "BLP-sensitive" --FMSky (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP editors and new users have been telling us, it is dependent on context and nothing is blanket reliable or unreliable. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like it's desputed content anyway as the employee literally confirmed the suspension. It's factual, it happened --FMSky (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, none of the English language reliable sources have said that a Sweet Baby Inc employee's Twitter account was temporarily suspended, much less give a reason why the account was suspended. The only reliable source so far that has mentioned it has been Gry OnLine, though the reason for the suspension has, as I said in my reply below, multiple possible machine translations.

Even leaving aside the good-faith BLP objection for a moment which remains unanswered, there is also an open question here about whether that content is even due for inclusion. While I do note that multiple unreliable sources like That Park Place and The Shortcut have mentioned it, unreliable sources do not count when assessing the weight of a piece of information. If the majority of reliable sources do not mention this, then it seems like including it would be giving undue emphasis to a minority aspect of this topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

none of the English language reliable sources have said that a Sweet Baby Inc employee's Twitter account was temporarily suspended And that is exactly why these sources are *not* reliable. I realize several editors on this page want to tell a certain narrative but these sources are clearly lying. Any source that tells the full story is immediately suppressed. Kotaku should be purged from the article, it previous consensus that it can be unreliable. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that detail relevant? It just means the site suspended them, not that it was justified or the right thing to do. It certainly doesn't make the article unreliable. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? It is an important part of the timeline of events - far more relevant than most of the rest of the section that somehow made it into the article eg the (primary source) opinion of a The Mary Sue author. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an important part of the timeline, multiple high quality reliable sources would have mentioned it. So far no high quality reliable sources have mentioned it. At best, only two reliable sources have mentioned it, Gry OnLine and Xfire, and one of them (Xfire) is sceptical of the reasoning behind the block. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to my previous comment. Asked and answered. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly? Can you give me a hint as to where I might find these answers? Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See 03:23, 17 March 2024 Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"these sources are clearly lying" Omitting a detail is not lying. It may be a sign of bias but determining a reliable source does not account for bias. And while I do think that if an RS actually discusses it that we should include it, it is a minor factor in the overall story: it is the fact that SBI employees called out the curator group that created a Streisand effect to grow the followers of the group. Masem (t) 03:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is a minor factor in the overall story: it is the fact that SBI employees called out the curator group that created a Streisand effect to grow the followers of the group.

As you might imagine, SBI employees did interact with other users of Twitter before this event. What created a Streisand effect in this case is not the request to report the group by itself, it's the way it was done. You already know it, but I'll add another citation for those who don't: "Anyways, report the [redacted] out of this group!". What caused much more outrage and actually set things in motion was the next tweet in that thread (which is not mentioned in "reliable sources", despite being the most important one!): "and report the creator since he loves his account so much" --Moon darker (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did that second tweet actually cause more outrage? Can that actually be measured? People would've been mad at them reporting the group anyway, it seems more like a cherry on top instead of the chief reason for the outrage. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be measured accurately, although I will say that the second tweet in question has caused:

• Much more vocal outrage compared to the one asking to report the group
• Accusations of targeted harassment towards the group owner
• Ban of the employee account (previous tweets didn't target anybody personally)

Moon darker (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{( Buttinsky)} Irrespective of the topic at hand and strictly generally speaking, omitting key details is a form of lying DarmaniLink (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True but most of the users here aren't interested in improving this article. They want to push a certain narrative --FMSky (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a bold statement to say that every reliable source, that doesn't mention something that seems utterly non-notable, is unreliable simply because they do not mention it. Nor is omitting that detail lying.

Per WP:VG/S the current consensus on the situational reliability of Kotaku is due to their publishing of unmarked, low quality AI-written content, and a slow decline in editorial quality over a period of years. The current article, having been written by a senior editor for the site, has none of these issues, and has been widely cited and its content verified by other high quality sources present in the article. There is no reason for us to consider removing this Kotaku article at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

slow decline in editorial quality over a period of years This is the issue. You can't simply hand-wave that consensus away because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that articles from Kotaku are assessed on a case-by-case basis, because of the slow decline in editorial quality. This article has been assessed as reliable by multiple editors, and by multiple high quality reliable sources by nature of them citing it for facts within their own coverage. If all of Kotaku's articles were of this quality, it would not be considered a situational source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been assessed as reliable by multiple editors Patently false. There is clearly no consensus that Kotaku should be used in this case. Simply asserting that there is is not sufficient. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other people of Proof by assertion while engaging in it yourself is not going to bring others around to your way of thinking. MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to put in a good word for ipse dixit--I am trying hard to broaden its usage! Dumuzid (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the person claiming consensus. My assertions on consensus can be found at WP:VG/S. Where can the other editor's alleged consensus be found? Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions about what VG/S say are incorrect. The full text of the entry for Kotaku states News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance (such as [13]). Articles published before 2010 had comparatively weaker editorial standards, while articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content. It should be noted that this is not a definitive cut-off—editorial deterioration is gradual, and editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years—so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. (emphasis mine). As I've said in my comment below, multiple high quality reliable sources and multiple editors have assessed this Kotaku article as reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I've said above agrees with WP:VG/S (P.S. I haven't see an actual argument with something I've said about WP:VG/S, only some vague indications that I should prove it. So if you want to continue this please point out what you take issue with). See my previous comments.

Your comment below has already been refuted by my reply there. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of editors on this talk page, myself, Rhain, Dumuzid, Masem, and Aquillion have all assessed this Kotaku article as reliable. And as I said in my comment on 11 March, Eurogamer, PC Gamer, and The Guardian all consider the Kotaku article reliable and cite it in their coverage. In addition Wired, and Rock Paper Shotgun have also cited the Kotaku article as factual over the last 6 days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also many editors in this page disputing the reliability of Kotaku's reporting in this instance. Highlighting only the subset of editors that agree with you is not consensus.

I picked one of the sources at random that you linked in that Gish Gallop: Wired has been careful to use attribution in many cases ("According to", etc) which is a far cry from characterizing them as cited the Kotaku article as factual. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of argument matters. People who just disagree with that Kotaku is saying, accusing them of 'lying' or who based their argument on misstating that WP:VG/S says can be discounted. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this is utterly non-notable or not is WP:OR on your part. I'd assume that the thing that started the whole chain of Online backlash and harassment is notable? Moon darker (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sensitive content, like asserting that someone was blocked on social media for "inciting harassment", typically requires multiple high quality sources. At present there is one source, written in Polish, and when I looked at the text through machine translation as I don't speak Polish it could be translated a couple of different ways with entirely different meanings. The text in Polish is za nawoływanie do nienawiści w stosunku do twórcy listy., which Google translates as for inciting hatred towards the creator of the list, and DeepL translates as for hate speech towards the list maker, and our article text was for inciting harassment. Now I don't know how accurate those machine translations are, I don't speak Polish, and perhaps someone who does can chime in with the correct translation as it might be something entirely different. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple sources: https://www.geeknewsnow.net/index.php/2024/03/08/sweet-baby-inc-when-grifting-goes-wrong/

https://game8.co/articles/latest/sweet-baby-inc-employees-fail-spectacularly-at-trying-to-get-steam-curator-banned --FMSky (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Geek News Now article you linked is very clearly tagged as an opinion article, so even if it were reliable WP:RSOPINION would apply and we could not cite it for facts. That said, it hasn't been discussed at RSN or VG/S, and I can't find any evidence of an editorial policy or oversight which is required per WP:QUESTIONABLE, so if it were brought up at RSN I suspect it would not be considered a reliable source.

game8 is likely an unreliable source per a brief discussion in September 2022, though it hasn't been discussed in any detail at VG/S or RSN. That particular article has been brought up a couple of times on this talk page over the last week, and multiple editors are sceptical about whether the source is reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknewsnow is only a few months old and hasn't had time to develop a reputation either way. No Editorial policy, looks like a group blog. MrOllie (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its getting slightly ridiculous now, we are having 7 to 8 sources now discussing the same exact event --FMSky (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And only one, Gry OnLine, has been reliable. Again, unreliable sources do not count towards due weight per multiple policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS). Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can surely stick to the ones that aren't doing things like citing Knowyourmeme as a factual source. MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one is almost certainly reliable https://www.xfire.com/sweet-baby-inc-detected-controversy-shutting-down-critics-on-steam/ --FMSky (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that XFire is a reliable source, though it hasn't been discussed at RSN or VG/S. It appears to have a reasonable editorial policy and standards. Ideally I'd want to see at least one more reliable source for a piece of content this contentious, but reasonable minds may differ on that. I'd like to hear from Aquillion for what they think, as they're the editor who originally removed the content.

If it is reliable though, for me that still leaves a question of whether or not this is due for inclusion. If only two RS, out of the dozen or so in the in the article, have actually mentioned this why is this due for inclusion? It seems to me like this being an important factoid is a minority view within reliable sources, and policy tells us that small minority views don't belong on Wikipedia even if they are verifiable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can i ask you why you want this information suppressed so badly? --FMSky (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of disruption we've seen on this article, which has been ECPed per a request at ARCA for a year, and this talk page, which is semi-protected for another 4 days, ensuring that we're carefully policy for all additions to the article is not unreasonable.

WP:NPOV is as the policy lead states in bold, non-negotiable. Any piece of content we include in an article must comply with it. So I return to the question, if only two RS out of the dozen or so in the in the article have actually mentioned this piece of information, why is this due for inclusion? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here is another reliable source: https://mobilesyrup.com/2024/03/16/sweet-baby-controversy-toxic-gamers-stand-up-for-devs-and-media-editorial/ any attempts to further stonewall this article will be considered disruptive --FMSky (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a July 2022 RfC at RSN there appears to be no consensus on the reliability of that source, with a slight leaning towards it being generally unreliable. I would not cite that for anything BLP sensitive. Additionally while it could support a brief mention that the employee's Twitter account was suspended, it would not support the text that it was suspended for inciting harassment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, your rabid insistence on including any detail that favors your view is what's disruptive. You're really pushing it here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There's numerous reasons why these sources aren't enough. I won't go over all of them individually (if you have doubts about any one of them, take whichever you think is best to WP:RSN), but WP:BLP-sensitive and WP:EXCEPTIONAL things require the highest-quality sourcing; obviously, asserting that they were blocked for inciting harassment hits both those points, especially in this context. And it's important to understand what you are asking to add to the article here, compared to the weakness of your sourcing - remember, this isn't an article about "Gamergate 2" or whatever title it eventually has, this is an article about a company. You want to add something about a tweet by a random employee at the company, on their private account, giving a rationale for a block that is sources to only the weakest sources; obviously the bar for that is going to be high to begin with even before we get into things like WP:AVOIDVICTIM. On top of this (and this touches on why the section header was a BLP violation), there is a WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issue here - even the weaker sources that you've presented attribute the rationale for the block to Twitter; they don't endorse it in their article voice. In fact, one of them, xfire, clearly disagrees with that rationale. But presenting it the way you want to add it, without context higher-quality secondary coverage, would imply (and, again, per this section header, you clearly recognize that it implies) that the employee in question did something wrong. That's the sort of implication that, again, requires high-quality sourcing; and it's the sort of problem you run into when using weak sources to "prove" something. If, as you believe, it is actually central to the entire topic, higher-quality sources will go into depth on it eventually and we can add it then - but it's worth pointing out that we do already have relatively high quality sourcing (eg. Wired) which make no mention of it and which, in fact, describe a history of harassment going back much further. This implies that it is simply WP:UNDUE and that your interpretation of it isn't reflected in mainstream coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about including " which resulted in the emloyee's Twitter account being temporarily blocked instead."? --FMSky (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, and just now on both my talk page, I think it's WP:UNDUE. There are, at best two reliable sources (Gry OnLine and Xfire) who have mentioned this in any way. The vast majority of reliable sources writing about this simply have not mentioned that employee's account being temporarily blocked, nor the reason why. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So how much reliable sources more before its fine to include? --FMSky (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly more than 2, but it's not strictly a volume question it's also one of source quality. Ideally we'd see at least one of the higher quality sources like Game Developer, GI.biz, or Wired mention it as being of importance.

I agree with what Aquillion has said below however, we're here to provide a summary of the history of this company. Based on the sourcing we have available right now, that an employee was temporarily blocked on Twitter just doesn't seem that noteworthy in the broader story of the ongoing harassment the company is facing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

majority of reliable sources writing about this The reason for that is certain editors here have forgotten WP:NPOV and only accept sources if they tell the narrative those editors want them to tell. eg Kotaku is included in the article despite previous consensus that they are often not reliable. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree that Kotaku publishes a lot of trash. However, for once they made something good (their exposé on SBI Detected), and that's when y'all dismiss it? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Kotaku really should not be used nearly as much as it is across the rest of WP. WP:OTHERTHINGS exist, but we're not discussing those other articles so I'm not sure how this contributes to the conversation here. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's kind of a murky one. Kotaku as a source has been debated for many years (I recall one editor claiming since 2016). The article in question seems good and contains actual journalism rather than what Kotaku is normally known for. That said, I do hear the concerns about the author of the article being too close to the issue and on top of that they're a senior editor so there could be concerns about whether sufficient oversight is in place prior to publishing.

It also seems like many other sources are using the Kotaku article as a source. On one hand, this provides some validity to it. On the other hand, it wouldn't be out of character for a commercial website to jump on the only notable source for their own article to get in on the clicks and ad revenue. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kotaku author is only close to the issue in that after the publication, they became the target of harassment. If they wrote a second article on the topic , that might raise issues but not the first one that appears unaffected by any closeness to the issue.

The RSes that start from Kotaku have demonstrated their own original journalism to affirm what Kotaku has said, so that eliminates concerns that Kotaku is falsifying the whole thing. (Bias, again, is not something we consider for reliability). Masem (t) 12:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that version is certainly not as bad, but some of the basic problems remain - it's given no weight in the best sources. Maybe as this develops and gets more coverage there will be more, but one problem that happened during Gamergate (harassment campaign) was that there was this constant flood of ever-shifting rationales for the campaign, coupled with YouTube videos or the like broadcasting them; and because many people believed points X or Y or Z were vital based on this, they tended to creep into the article as soon as they had any coverage anywhere at all, no matter how low-quality or brief, rapidly coupled with other articles debunking or dissecting them. Again, by my reading the xfire piece is the latter sort of coverage; if we were really going to use it we'd have to make clear that it condemns the block in order to avoid misuse of it as a source. But it's easy to see how going that route makes things even more bloated and unreadable - this sort of thing resulted in an article bloated with the detritus of blow-by-blow forum arguments that ultimately didn't matter and which was rarely mentioned in higher-quality big-picture coverage. It'd be best to avoid a repeat of that here by focusing on things that only have high-quality coverage from the start; especially, again, since this is an article for a company, the thing to do is to just summarize the key points from the best sources, which mostly look like the Wired source linked above. We're an encyclopedia, so we're just supposed to provide a top-level summary; and for a summary like that, it's hard to justify "an employee of this company got briefly blocked on Twitter" based on the sourcing we have at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources

So here just a quick summary of the sources we currently have to support the fact that the Sweet Baby Inc emloyee's account was blocked for a violation of rules:

• Gry-Online: https://web.archive.org/web/20240306140716/https://www.gry-online.pl/newsroom/co-to-jest-sweet-baby-inc-i-dlaczego-gracze-krytykuja-tworcow-wsp/z8287f1 (confirmed reliable)
• Xfire: https://www.xfire.com/sweet-baby-inc-detected-controversy-shutting-down-critics-on-steam/ (likely reliable)

-- these two also explicitly state the account was blocked for inciting harassment

• Mobilesyrup https://mobilesyrup.com/2024/03/16/sweet-baby-controversy-toxic-gamers-stand-up-for-devs-and-media-editorial/ (unclear, possibly reliable)
• Game8: https://game8.co/articles/latest/sweet-baby-inc-employees-fail-spectacularly-at-trying-to-get-steam-curator-banned (unclear, possibly reliable)
• Theshortcut: https://www.theshortcut.com/p/sweet-baby-inc-detected-what-actually-happened (unclear, currently being discussed)
• Geeksandgamers: https://www.geeksandgamers.com/sweet-baby-inc-does-exactly-what-gamers-think-they-do/ (unclear)
• Geeknewsnow: https://www.geeknewsnow.net/index.php/2024/03/08/sweet-baby-inc-when-grifting-goes-wrong/ (likely unreliable)
• Thatparkplace: https://thatparkplace.com/sweet-baby-inc-employee-begs-followers-to-report-steam-curator-that-tracks-sweet-baby-inc-s-involvement-in-video-games/ (likely unreliable)
• Niche Gamer: https://nichegamer.com/sweet-baby-employees-incite-harassment-campaign-against-steam-curator/ (unreliable)
• The account itself: *screenshot* (may be usable per WP:ABOUTSELF)

I think one more reliable source and it should be enough to include Only meant as a summary --FMSky (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I said last night. Unreliable sources don't count towards assessing due weight, and it's not strictly a question of volume. None of the high quality sources have mentioned this at all, which stands somewhat at odds with a lot of the unreliable sources mentioning it. The open (if rhetorical) questions seem to be; why do the higher quality sources consider this not noteworthy? And is a temporary block of one employee really going to be something that's notable about this company or this backlash in 5-10 years time? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just meant as a summary about what we currently have and not to start the discussion all over again. Also no, None of the high quality sources have mentioned this at all - Gry-Online clearly has mentioned it --FMSky (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summary shouldn't include sources which are clearly never going to be included in the article, due to being unreliable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You weaken your argument by including obviously unreliable sources. As I said last time, part of my concern is that it feels like inclusion could effectively imply or cobble together the arguments made in unreliable sources via WP:SYNTH, which is obviously a problem. I don't think any of these sources really come close to what we'd want to use for something of this nature, but if you look at the sources you consider reliable, they don't place much emphasis or focus on this. So why are you so insistent on wanting to include it? It feels to me like you're influenced by the more strident accusations in the unreliable sources, which is obviously not how we should be writing articles or assessing WP:DUE weight. Beyond that, like I said, you know where WP:RSN is - it wouldn't necessarily settle the WP:DUE issue, but if you're convinced the sourcing is here for this, take whatever source you consider best there and see what they say. --Aquillion (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, FMSky, with all due respect, this feels a bit like saying "if so many unreliable sources are saying it, it must be true." I don't think there's anything wrong with it per se, though I also don't believe it's helpful. But as I often say, to each his or her own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Verge reliable? As the author has leaked DMs where she clearly states shes got a bias and reporting the whole story hurt the spin they put on the whole thing, which they are trying to avoid by blaming ONLY the steam group. Kotaku is the same and everyone BUT wikipedia knows it. 24.201.177.245 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add on to the above as I had some technical issues. The point is that the sources called reliable are all opinion pieces reporting only one side of this issue and it continues to be based on allegations and unreliable information based on ideology. Opinion pieces based on the opinion of a Kotaku journalist whos shown herself hostine to answeriing any question about her article and shows absolutely no reliable proof of anything she says. While the sources deemed 'unreliable' have accurate timelines with all of the actual proof (screenshots, Twitter DMs, discord dms etc) with an accurate descrition on the whole issue.

And now the author of the Verge article, who's come out and said that reporting the whole situation would hurt what shes trying to push.

So what makes The Verge or Kotaku's opinion pieces more reliable than actual well reserched articles with all of the proof of what is actually going on with this situation? Alyssa mercante whos been hostile from the start and wont answer questions about the integrity of her own work or a website thats plastered the reciepts of what they're saying all over their article? what source is reliable again? 24.201.177.245 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's description of reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that every single "reliable" source is from an opinion piece with very little if any factual information. Not to mention the obvious leanings of their authors and now, from their own admission, actual proof that presenting both sides of this story is something editors wish to avoid, is being used as the gold standard for this story.

While anything that is actually factual. With proof and reciepts all over them, coming straight from the individuals involved, or THE FACTUAL "THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED" on the Chris Kindred twitter page itself... Is not a reliable source because... reasons? 24.201.177.245 (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's discussion of primary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets skip over the fact that Alyssa Mercante inserted herself and whatever she spews definitely makes her a primary source and what everything she says is somehow NOT considered an opinion piece... also the main source for any of this apparently (Since all of the others point back to her) what makes her attempt at a smear campaign more reliable than this of This with clear references and proof to what they are talking about. Since Context matters. 24.201.177.245 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, again, you're not going to have CNN side with SBI Detected for the same reason you're not going to see them praise Donald Trump if he somehow did something that wasn't dumb and they liked. More than that they are fully involved with one side and people calling out their integrity for omitting facts (with proof) isn't making any of them likely to do better. Context matters and I think that should apply when you have opinion pieces treated like they are reliable while sources which actually show their work (even if its not required, it s all over the news articles with all of the screenshots anyone needs) are considered unreliable for some reason. Where proof of facts exists, that should be the context. 24.201.177.245 (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to see this from your POV but I don't think your proof/receipts are the bombshell that you do. It's entirely reasonable and normal for journalists to exclude details that they believe are irrelevant to the story. It's also entirely reasonable and normal to struggle with the decision of what to exclude, and for back and forth dialogue to happen with editors. There's nearly always more that could be written in an article but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. You disagree with the line. I get that.

But all of this is beside the point. We can't use the primary sources or unreliable sources the way you want us to. We also can't demote news coverage to "opinion pieces" the way you want us to. The article you're asking us to write is simply not possible. You can argue that it's one side relying on facts and the other ignoring them, but as is usually the case, everything points to both sides valuing the facts differently. Woodroar (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will say that, in general, I'm negative on the use of newsmedia in the context of reliability. That being said I can confirm that mobilesyrup constitutes a mainstream newsmedia source and is as reliable as Kotaku, etc. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all both sides do value facts differently because both sides have an ideological agenda, but this isn't flat earth or pizzagate. Theres no denying the important fact that Chris Kindred asked for people to mass report the curator group and the person who created it, causing this to grow from a 5000 people group to 300 000 people.

While Kotaku and every other publication with a stake in not discussing that SBI employees pushed this to blow up are allowed to find this irrelevant to their story, their story is that an evil group of 300 000 people are just bigots. period. Not reporting on the timeline of events or telling the truth and not even about SBI either. As The Verge writer admitted before saying that reporting on that would give the other side legitimacy which editors wanted to avoid.

I'm not saying that these sources are reliable all the time, but as context matters, they're as reliable this time as the Kotaku article, which the others based themselves off of and share the same ideology in this case. Seeing as those who oppose Kotaku have the proof visible to all embedded in their own articles and while Kotaku is considered reliable despite their constant need to insert their ideological values in most of their articles, all they have up is a meme about haircuts and a mention of talking to SBI to get their side. While she mentions "infiltrating" the public discord and cherrypicking what she needed to make these people look bad and ignored the documented talk she had with a member.

I'm just saying that since a wikipedia article is supposed to tell the truth, it cant (or shouldn't) just ignore what proof or who has it as fully visible to make this an unbiased article in this case as its not an issue where anyone is willing to tell the whole story as such where proof exists of events, context should matter. 24.201.177.245 (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to point out three things:

1) WP:TRUTH. We aren't actually here to "tell the truth". We're here to report what reliable sources say, with due weight to the topic at hand. That means some things are going to get left out.

2) Not everyone here agrees that the information you want to include is "important." At this point, you're beating a dead horse.

3) The entire argument that gaming media (especially Kotaku) is "biased" or "involved" is not really going to fly. It's a convenient way of eliminating reliable sources. Kotaku was not involved in the issue, and has no stakes here beyond reporting it. People have invented this agenda that Kotaku supposedly has, and it was not a persuasive argument in the GamerGate article. It's not going to be persuasive here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THTFY pretty much beat me to it, but I'll say my piece anyway: First of all, Wikipedia is interested in verifiability, not truth. I am very much with Woodroar (and THTFY) here insofar as while I know these items you are bringing up seem quite meaningful to you, from other standpoints they can seem less so. Perhaps you're right that the fact of the reporting of the Steam group cannot be denied, but the importance thereof certainly can. And I also read that Verge writer quite differently. To my eye it looked like she investigated and was therein trying to decide how best to put the story together. You can certainly look for 'news' that is simply a transcription or timeline of events, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Just for the record, Wikipedia is not the only place to try to espouse these views. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Context matters. The reliability of sources is a large part of the issue. Like it or not if you have to bring up Donald Trump in a Playstation preview, what matters to you is showing (talking about gaming press).

2) It's what started this. If those tweets aren't important, none of this is. You cant have both. In no logical world is this to be avoided... in an ideological one however... not everyone agrees. I wonder why.

3) Kotaku's reliability (especially Kotaku) has been in question for a decade if not more. You can't choose to ignore proof when there are sources that put in the work when Kotaku chose not to. Since that article came out Alyssa Mercante has fully involved herself in the situation and when asked to explain her choices her answer has been "You’re not my boss! I don’t owe you shit! Bye!" which is the complete antithesis of ethical journalism. 24.201.177.245 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts: as to (1), there's no rule that says a game review can't take into account politics in some manner. That seems to be your rule, but it's not a general rule. If that's not for you, then don't patronize that outlet. Either there are people in the world who don't mind or like that sort of commentary, or the outlet will go away in short order. (2) it's entirely logically consistent to say an initial event might be non-noteworthy, but a backlash or reaction is. That's a bit like saying you can't discuss The Great Chicago Fire without having the full pedigree of Mrs. O'Leary's cow. Finally, with regard to (3) being an ethical journalist does not mean you have to answer questions on Twitter, or even be nice on Twitter. It means you follow the sources and make corrections when required. Again, I honestly don't blame you for wanting to pursue this--that's fine. But Wikipedia is the wrong venue. You're trying to contort this encyclopedia into something it just isn't (at least with its current policies and guidelines!). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the tweets by SBI is inevitably what lead to something that was quietly mumbled about on KF and other sites into a larger group, it is the attacks on SBI that happened afterward which drew the press interest. So the fact that one SBI account was blocked due to the likely doxxing issue, we have mentioned that it was the total if all SBI tweets that grew the size of the curator group, and which led to harassment. Whether to mention the one BI account that was blocked, the only point that is a consession to the curator group's side, it is overall a minor drop of everything that has gone on.

And even if we assume the Kotaku writer had a conflict of interest in writing that story, other reliable (more consistently reliable too) sources have independently confirmed the events. So maybe Kotaku went out of their way to light a fire under the press to cover this (which I highly doubt) but now we have multiple in depend reviews of the topic and thus we are summarizing what they have said. Masem (t) 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request a list of all available sources that have independently verified this particular aspect of it

pic? That way we'd have a complete list in this one topic. 70.67.205.203 (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know why it double posted or included that extra word "pic" and extra line. 70.67.205.203 (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request a list of all available sources that have independently verified this particular aspect of it

pic? That way we'd have a complete list in this one topic. 70.67.205.203 (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 3) - While I'm not exactly convinced that Kotaku is a great outlet and I personally thought the blurb saying why it's situational should've been a lot stronger based on the discussions that proceeded the downgrade from reliable, the consensus is that it's reliable in this context.

Rather than trying to convince people on this talk page, you might be more successful collecting evidence and arguing over at the reliable sources noticeboard that it should be downgraded further. Their second Editor in Chief in a matter of months just resigned, not long after one was fired, how a staff writer says the management is telling to copy other website's content, and some veiled accusations are going around. Maybe something more might come out, maybe not. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone else has basically addressed the points I would've made. 24, you're not going to gain consensus for the changes you want here. You just want something Wikipedia isn't built for. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[5]). 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I mean [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[7]; Video Games Chronicle[8]; and The Daily Beast[9]. Dumuzid (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There have been a great number of discussions opened on this talk page to propose alternate sources; these tend to be largely identical. Somebody will post a link saying "this proves that the stuff in the Wikipedia article is wrong", someone will say that the linked website is some kind of lame clickslop garbage, and it will be thrown in the bin. Perhaps this is true. The ones I have seen so far are: https://mobilesyrup.com/2024/03/16/sweet-baby-controversy-toxic-gamers-stand-up-for-devs-and-media-editorial/ , https://game8.co/articles/latest/sweet-baby-inc-employees-fail-spectacularly-at-trying-to-get-steam-curator-banned , https://www.theshortcut.com/p/sweet-baby-inc-detected-what-actually-happenedhttps://www.geeksandgamers.com/sweet-baby-inc-does-exactly-what-gamers-think-they-do/ , https://www.geeknewsnow.net/index.php/2024/03/08/sweet-baby-inc-when-grifting-goes-wrong/ , https://thatparkplace.com/sweet-baby-inc-employee-begs-followers-to-report-steam-curator-that-tracks-sweet-baby-inc-s-involvement-in-video-games/ , https://nichegamer.com/sweet-baby-employees-incite-harassment-campaign-against-steam-curator/

These sites look pretty mid to me, and some of them look bad. They are mostly what we call "video game journalism".

I don't think we should be citing stuff to sources where the editorial oversight and quality of writing/research is demonstrably much poorer than our own.

Most websites that claim to do journalism about video games, to be blunt, do not. To the extent they do, it seems to be a small minority of their output, which is predominantly clickable content-mill stuff regurgitated from industry press releases, and occasional "tweetalism" articles about a viral social media post (which tend to consist entirely of embedding the post and making some vague commentary about how it "just won the Internet" etc). For example, if we look at the front page of Kotaku right now, here is what it has:

18 Things We Learned From The Acolyte Trailer

Overwatch 2 Is Reverting One Of The Sequel’s Most Controversial Changes

Fallout TV Series First Official Clip Is Actually Very Funny

How To Complete ‘Stuck In A Rut’ In FF7 Rebirth

How To Romance Tifa In FF7 Rebirth

FF7 Rebirth’s Best Materia For Buffing Your Party

How To Get Goat Milk In Unicorn Overlord

All The Unicorn Overlord And FF7 Rebirth Tips You Need

Unicorn Overlord: The Kotaku Review

Skull And Bones: The Kotaku Review

Final Fantasy VII Rebirth: The Kotaku Review

PlayStation Pulse Elite Headset Offers Some Serious Bang For Your Buck

"News" is one of the nine separate subsections of the main page of the site. Clicking on it, we get a few of those articles from the front page, as well as:

Destiny 2’s Newest Mode Delivers Something Fans Have Waited Years For

18 Things We Learned From The Acolyte Trailer

Someone At A Flea Market Couldn't Give Away Copies Of NBA 2k19

Massive Dragon's Dogma 2 Spoilers Leak Days Before Release

None of these are really news. They are mostly press releases from video game companies -- with some video game reviews (essentially blog posts) and a couple tweetpieces. Most concerning to me are the undisclosed affiliate marketing posts -- the post about the PlayStation headset has not one but two line-spanning large bright buttons to buy it from Best Buy, which has a Kotaku affiliate marketing link (https://howl.me/clFYghE6Uld, which redirects to https://www.bestbuy.com/site/-/6567072.p?cmp=RMX&nrtv_cid=64bc791c1371d3764b43e73146d231368b93cd79a818f0041cc1cafe235f6884&utm_source=narrativ&ar=1837046648727687202). Generally, when websites and blogs do affiliate marketing promotional posts where they make money from people buying the product, they disclose this somewhere in the article. They have not done this.

While I certainly agree that being primarily a review/walkthrough website does not militate strongly towards something being an acceptable source for contentious topics, it seems rather silly to raise this standard only for the sources that have been provided so far, whereas the article currently has... twelve citations to a single page on Kotaku. I suppose the relevant question, then, is not "is this site a credible source?", but rather "is this site at least as credible as Kotaku, a tabloid/blog whose posts have undisclosed affiliate marketing links?" It seems noteworthy that at least some of the central issue here (?) is people having some beef with Kotaku specifically, which makes it especially questionable to lean on it so heavily as a source -- hasn't a site who isn't involved in this idiotic online argument weighed in?

I am not particularly interested in the political dimensions of this, nor do I play video games very often (and what games I do play are open source) -- to be blunt, I do not really give a hoot about whether these guys are woke bluehairs ruining video games 4EVAR!!!!! or whether the other guys are sleazy creepazoid far-wing-alt-whatever. These things should not really be a consideration when we evaluate sources; my concern here is that using low-quality sources causes us to write low-quality articles, and we should be seriously committed to citing things to credible outlets. jp×g🗯️ 09:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sites you've listed are what we'd seriously consider as "video game journalism" as none of them have a history of fact checking or editorial control, nor are recognized by the larger video game community. Kotaku has been, despite the changes they have gone through. Plenty of other known RSes using undisclosed marketing links, but that's not a concern under WP:V for reliable sources.

It is also important that from the nature of the controversy around SBI, it was Kotaku that broke the story to the larger world, and since then, multiple sites have confirmed the story, refering the Kotaku story. Hence why many of the references are to Kotaku. Attempts to undermind the reliability of Kotaku, as to thus either claim we shouldn't cover the controversy or that we should include lesser sites make no sense at this point. If Kotaku was the only source covering this, then I would agree its too much, but with the numerous other RSes that have validated the story, there's zero reason to put any doubt into inclusion of the Kotaku story at this point. Masem (t) 12:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kotaku didn't break this to a wider world. It were YouTube Creators who did. Kotaku wrote a (very biased) piece and other Media outlets refer to it because they don't do any original research, at all. USEBYOTHERS is a pretty neat thing, but here it just proves to be fatally flawed. Not that it matters. The Fact that the Factchecking, you all inquire so much about, is not done in this particular instance by Kotaku or any of the follow ups, is mindbogeling.

If the Kotaku Author did not involve herself in a harassment campaign of her own making and recived backkash because of it, would it affect the reliabillity of her piece? (again BLP and X)

Context matters. Adtonko (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The harassment came after she wrote the article, so it has no relevance to the article's reliability (not that it would anyway). And, to clarify, other media outlets certainly did do their own research and fact-checking. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only replying to the part about YouTube creators that broke it - maybe within the gaming community, the highlighting of how the SBI employees were calling for the curator group to be removed via youtube videos may have increased attention there, but that's only with the circle of gamers and likely a small subset of them, and certainly not to the world at large. Kotaku is a recognized source for gaming news across the media (even if their quality is no longer as good as it was) and it is recognized there that they broke the story about SBI getting harassed by gamers and the use of disproven conspiracy theories that SBI was forcing all those games to go "woke". Again, I'm seeing the pattern from GamerGate, but there, while there may have been some gamers that thought initially the protest was about "ethics in game journalism" but eventually was throws out the door, the side here trying to latch on to "SBI did a bad thing, the curator group was only listing games and not telling ppl to avoid" and a whole bunch of other excuses have quickly been proven wrong, and the attempts to discredit Kotaku here isn't going to change what has been published since. — Masem (t) 14:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is Kotaku is an active participant here. It's senior editors have been involved in the initial doxing attempt of the users in the steam/discord group failing which they tried to go after several high profile gamers/ content creators. This brings the entire stuff they write regarding this into question.

Of course recurring issue here being sources can't be cited due to Wikipedia:No original research. 58.84.60.110 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a powerful endorsement of the criticality of WP:NOR to the health of the project. It provides a barrier against a flood of conspiracy theories and gossip. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or that verifiability and neutral point of view can be in direct conflict when journalists cited as sources are the stakeholders. Even if the sources are straight from horse's mouth. 58.84.60.110 (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During GamerGate pt1 we saw a lot of this notion that if one 'side' of a dispute attacked journalism, that means Wikipedia could then not use journalists as a source. Since then, the same attacks have become extremely common in all kinds of political discourse (think of people who say 'Lamestream media'). But buying into that notion is untenable, one cannot silence critical sources just by making attacks on any journalist who writes something one disapproves of. If Wikipedia bought into this argument we would have to say goodbye to almost every source we have on politics, on vaccines, climate change, etc. MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists are not "stakeholders" in any rational sense. This whole argument that we have to disregard journalists because they're a "side" in this situation is utter nonsense and will not result in Wikipedia changing its practices. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" it was Kotaku that broke the story to the larger world, and since then, multiple sites have confirmed the story"

The other sites havent done any journalism of investigation on their own, they are just quoting the Kotaku article.

That is not "confirming" Selo007 (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even a quick glance at articles from several other outlets prove that they have performed their own investigations. Very few have relied solely on Kotaku's article. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku is certainly clickbaity, and I have the same concerns you do about the affiliate link, but otherwise I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Of course a video game news site is going to be mostly news about (specific) video games. Reviews, spoilers, and so on are video game news. Not every site can be People Make Games and only do hard-hitting investigative journalism about video games. (And even they have relatively fluffy stuff.) Loki (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure one of the sources that show that sweet baby ink was harassed is showing what it says it does. it's all alleged. and it's Amanda Marquette even then the fact is that an employee of Sweet Baby Incorporated harassed a steam curator and tried to flag their personal account that was targeted harassment. in fact I have the source a lot of people have the source of the original tweet even screenshots and the like ==

forgive the errors with my text to speech conception but there's a lot of problems with the article and the sources of the harassment that sweet baby Inc encountered doesn't seem to be entirely there or extent. I have primary sources that show that sweet baby ink has engaged in harassment and that journalists have also engaged in harassment in order to defend sweet baby. such as explicitly asking individuals why they don't use their name and real face.

this article and many others like it have screenshots and Archives of the tweets were Chris Kindred engaged in Target harassment against the steam user who was in charge of a steam Keurig group called sweet baby inc detected.

[13]

the sourcesthat come with the claim of sweet baby Incorporated receiving threats do not seem to yield any concrete proof or instance or even example of such things. other than a reporter's word for it. could we please edit the article and such a way that it would reflect this? they mean these are material facts MisteOsoTruth (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna read the "Harassment from SBI" section. I think your concerns have already been adressed there Trade (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source reliable? @FMSky:--Trade (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, MisteOsoTruth it doesn't matter whether it true or not. If we can't verify it according to our (very high) standards then we can't add it. There is no more to it Trade (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im not sure if the wiki standards are high to be honest. The article claims that the info came from one place whilst the link in the article shows the discourse started elsewhere and was shared at kiwifarm. Because the article claims one thing which isn't true, wiki has to show that info.

While the info from kiwifarms was the ignition for the controversy, it wasn't the origin.

This bit of info can't be edited because of the existing editing standards which claim that articles are either factual or not, but not both even if they may fall into that category in one article. 220.240.44.90 (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]