468x60 Ads

( Please watch the above video first )

Over the years I have tried in vain to convince the self-appointed keepers of Wikipedia's Computer RPG Article to remove the "Cultural differences" section because the entire section is sourced from online videogame magazines editorials that do not cite their sources, essentially making the articles original research under Wikipedia's guidelines and require more case-by-case scrutiny than being given.

Basically the game magazine and blog editorials only reflect the author's personal opinion. Despite this the Wikipedia editors are passing the original research off as as reliable statements of fact for millions of people to read every day when they try to learn about the videogame topics. I see this as a massive problem because rather than educate they are spreading ignorance, which is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing and isn't why people read Wikipedia.

I have noticed this credibility source issue to be a problem with not just the Computer RPG article but all of the major Wikipedia articles concerning videogames. I posted on the Wikipedia Videogame Project Talk page about how consumer magazines and blogs need to be scrutinized closer. Unsurprisingly the editors circled their wagons to defend their piece of internet property. I did not accept their excuses for why they were deeming them to be reliable. I find it amusing that they told me to sit in on future discussions concerning the reliability of a website, as if a single opposing viewpoint would overrule their majority votes to confirm their favorite blogs / magazines.

I find it quite tragic that I was also accused of having a dubious intent behind my beliefs; rather than acknowledge that these editorials pieces do not comply with Wikipedia's definition of what reliable sources are, they focused on my own occupation as a game reviewer. Note that at no time did I ever try to supplant another game reviewer's opinion for my own-- I only pointed out that they were not reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition. My own videos obviously do not qualify under this definition either-- which, again, is irrelevant because I was not trying to replace sources but remove unsubstantiated information. My goal was nothing more than to have tons of misinformation removed from Wikipedia that stems from the editors decision to use game magazines with a track record of dubious journalism integrity as reliable sources rather than try to find reliable ones written by experts on the subjects and who, at the least, cite other reliable sources not just online gaming blogs and other consumer gaming magazines owned by companies who either publish or sell videogames.

Until the articles are edited by people who intend to comply with Wikipedia's own definitions of verifiability, I suggest no one use Wikipedia as a source for reliable information concerning videogames.

Amendment: I have backed up the talk page on my own website, as they tend to get deleted by Administrators.
RPG Fanatic Side-Quests #5.1: Record of Wikipedia Videogames Talk Page

Links to the pages discussed in this video:

Roleplaying Videogame Article

Responses to me from editors on the Wikipedia Project Videogames Talk Page

Wikipedia Cultural Differences in RPGs section

Examples of How Videogame Article Sources Were Determined to be "Credible"


Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-RPG-Fanatic/374329482132

Twitter: http://twitter.com/therpgfanatic

Gameplay review for Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (2006) by Raven Software, published by Activision.
This is a fine piece of journalism that I thought my readers would be interested in checking out. It showcases the inherent bias in many Western game reviewers toward Japanese made computer rpgs ("JRPGs", if you will).


Final Fantasy Mystic Quest Review!

This article is a few months old but I still want to share it with my readers.