Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.: Difference between revisions

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia

Everyone editing this article back and forth should please have a refresher on Neutral Point of View. Pay particular attention to the following:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.

I'll thank you for stopping inserting "falsely" and "correctly" in places where they do not belong. Sanzennin (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That the theory is false is a fact, and is sourced as such (though I've removed it from the lead anyway). The word "correctly" is not used in this article. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No. The fact is that Kotaku writer Alyssa Mercante characterized it as false. Alyssa Mercante is not, however, the ultimate decider of truth, and as such you can't claim everything she says is a fact. Sanzennin (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Mercante's opinion or characterisation; it is objectively how the company operates. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

According to whom? Whoever the source is, just write that "So-and-so has stated this is not how the company operates."

This is precisely the same as in the example provided in the NPOV article:

For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil. Sanzennin (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

According to anyone familiar with how consulting firms actually operate. In-text attribution is not required for simple facts. Regardless, I don't see this as an issue in the article's current state. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Consulting firms exist" is a simple fact. What consulting firms would and wouldn't do really isn't.

In any case, I do agree that the article is looking pretty good right now in regards to neutrality. Thank you for talking this through civilly and amicably. Sanzennin (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to stay neutral here, it might be beneficial to mention tweets of SBI employees regarding non-existence of white racism and other racist statements too, just as a fact - people working in [SBI] posted [this] commenting on this topic. Covering SBI co-founders methods of forcing companies to work with SBI might also provide a good perspective on situation. In general, the article still feels pretty one-sided. Moon darker (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss it in relation to the company and its work, then it might be suitable to add. Tweets from employees are generally not notable on their own. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

fully agree, this article is way too bias for WIKI Edits for Integrity (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:YESBIAS would be good reading for you. Wikipedia deliberately matches the 'bias' of the mainstream reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

i mean they are not neutrally reporting the sources, the gaming journos writing articles have no sources, WE hold the sources and they are being completely ignored. Edits for Integrity (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, neither you nor I are reliable sources. Wikipedia's entire ethos is organized representing what is found in reliable sources. I would respectfully suggest that you would be better off trying to get your point of view reflected in such sources rather than pushing against one of Wikipedia's foundational principles. Happy Monday, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

i'm not saying I am a reliable source, what I'm saying is that the actual reliable sources, like Chris Kindreds documented post calling for harassment against kabrutus, or @legobutts of Sweet Baby INC making racist post against whites and jews. How about we talk about how one of the sources "Alyssa the writer from Kotaku" stated on their X page when criticized for not covering the racist remarks by Sweet Baby INC now famously stated "You can't be racist to white people" this is her image on her page now. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

i forgot to finish that thought. we are ignoring these sources? really? Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

To finish that thought, there is NO reliable sources that sweet baby inc was harassed, and if they are i can't access them because they are locked and that lacks integrity. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards for sourcing can be found at WP:RS. We use secondary sources from commerical publishers, mostly. We cannot and will not use blogs, social media, or other self published materials in a situation like this one. Wikipedia absolutely will 'ignore' posts like that - except to the extent that secondary reliable sources comment on them. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

When quality of WP:RS content is questionable, which can be determined on a case-by-case basis, Wikipedia prefers NOT to include information from low quality sources. Moon darker (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

An accurate statement, but one that does not apply here. Low quality sources are things like the National Inquirer, not sources that editors happen to disagree with. MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Kotaku is a generally unreliable source to begin with. You can't argue the lacking reliability in this particular case, judging by claims made by authors of the article, quoted multiple times on this talk page. There are questions regarding multiple other sources too. Moon darker (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That you declare Kotaku 'generally unreliable' does not make it so. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

well non of the articles are reliable, they are all puff pieces, and if your sources lack integrity, anyone echoing said sources also lack integrity, i'm talking sources of what people actually did, you can't get a more reliable source than that, and if you can ignore peoples real life actions and hold up these people that are socially engineering racism and hate, than apparently Wiki is part of the problem. You can't be a group that claims DEI when you are filled with sexist and racist. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then Wikipedia lacks integrity. "Echoing said sources" is what Wikipedia's policies require us to do, and we're not going to simply set those policies aside for this one article. MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It does. Also, WP:5P5 Moon darker (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No one here has listened to Larry Sanger for many years. He's taken up supporting nonsense like QAnon and antivax. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm all against antivax, but it doesn't matter here, because a person can have opinions on different things and one "wrong" opinion doesn't take away the credibility of other ones. Moon darker (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it matters when his problem is that Wikipedia won't let him add antivax views in the name of 'neutrality'. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

i'm not anti-vax, what are you even going on about. your trying to demonize me and you know nothing about me. I am just trying to make sure things are covered truthfully. i don't even know who larry sanger is. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless you're Larry Sanger, nobody is talking about you. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Consider reading lists of WP:RSes before making claims like this. WikiProject Video games/Sources Moon darker (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, most of us are familiar with our source lists. Kotaku's reliability is situational, which means its to be evaluated by editors before its use. I'm perfectly happy with the reliability of the Kotaku article we use in our article. It's written by one of their senior editors, and the quality of it is actually pretty high. If all of their articles were as good as this one, we'd likely rate it higher on the reliability scale, alas they do put out some truly awful stuff as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes Moon darker, I have always considered Kotaku basically reliable for video game news (though there are certainly cautions, as Sideswipe9th mentions above). That said, it is entirely possible I missed something relevant. I have seen you say some version of this before; is there a specific page or reference to Kotaku that you're referencing? Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Should there be "quotes" around the word "woke"? Putting quotes around a word like that can give a dismissive connotation, which is not neutral. But on the other hand, this woke is the word that is being used by critics, so it kind of is a quote. Does the Manual of Style have guild lines for something like this? GranCavallo (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The intention was to present it as a quote but I understand the concern; this is discussed at MOS:QUOTEPOV too. I've expanded the quote to encompass "woke agenda" instead—this term is even less common so I think using quotation marks is valid. What are your thoughts? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• The sources use comparable quotes, as far as I can see; we have to reflect them in that case. --Aquillion (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  https://thatparkplace.com/sweet-baby-inc-employee-who-tried-to-cancel-gamer-over-boycott-list-gets-x-account-limited/ what about this article though. or this one. https://www.theshortcut.com/p/sweet-baby-inc-detected-what-actually-happened these are articles with more credible sources than the WIKI is using. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  the other sources have NO recipes. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  https://nichegamer.com/sweet-baby-employees-incite-harassment-campaign-against-steam-curator/ another one, tell me more about how your not ignoring the sources. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  https://game8.co/articles/latest/sweet-baby-inc-employees-fail-spectacularly-at-trying-to-get-steam-curator-banned another one, tell me more about how your not ignoring the sources Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  https://fandompulse.com/2024/03/05/sweet-baby-inc-ceo-kim-belair-speech-urged-employees-to-terrify-video-game-companies-if-they-dont-give-you-what-they-want/ or this one that covers how kim belair told everyone to use scare tactics against the developers marketing team. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't want to get in the way of your roll, here, but Wikipedia does have minimum sourcing standards (linked several times throughout this discussion) that your links do not meet. MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Kotaku doesn't meet it either, and conveniently you didn't answer here.

  Multiple sources shared by Edits for Integrity are not considered unreliable Moon darker (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I tend to find that repeating previous responses is a waste of space, and I will typically not respond in such cases. You're welcome to read over the previous discussion again if you still don't understand Wikipedia's position on use of Kotaku. MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  how do you know, they have only been up a couple minutes. I have doubts you even looked into them. it says at the top to avoid stating opinions as facts, but all i see here are opinions. the articles you use as sources are of opinion only, they have opinions from individuals with no factual sources. the articles i link have factual sources and they are being ignored. by your own words you are owning yourself. not to mention when i click "view source" it is locked, so i have no way to see what source is being used. this place is a joke i swear. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.geeksandgamers.com/sweet-baby-inc-does-exactly-what-gamers-think-they-do/ this one covers a lot, it also gets into Alyssas remark against her criticism, she WAS the original writer that all the puff pieces that have been echoed on all the unreliable articles. Edits for Integrity (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of NPOV...

I put the NPOV tag on the page because I don't think that calling employees fac[ing] harassment and doxing attempts mere "online backlash" is neutral. It's a harrassment campaign. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but we'd need sources to back up a section title like that. I also think that sources for that will eventually appear, as they did for Gamergate (harassment campaign), especially once we get more in-depth academic coverage digging into its roots and the like... but it may take some time. Do you have any good sources for how to characterize it yet? --Aquillion (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The best I can come up with, in terms of summarizing the information concisely and without glossing over any details, is "(Online) Backlash and harassment". I don't see why putting such a weighted tag over just a section title is justifiable, but regardless if that's your only concern then I'll remove the tag if consensus on the title is decided. Carlinal (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll remove the tag myself. I'd be fine with "Online backlash and harrassment" for now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for helping.

As for Aquillion, there's mentions of conspiracy theories and a "firestorm" along with the Steam and Discord groups, all stemming from significantly far-right-wing platforms that discuss video games. If that's not enough backing for the phrase "online backlash" I don't know what is. And doxing and comparisons to Gamergate is definitely justifiable to add the "harassment" part. If more reliable sources somehow come up for use, who knows if the new info would lead to another change, but in describing a series of events that have been going for several months I think it's unlikely another retitle would be needed further down the road. And the current batch of sources is good enough too. Personally I...hesitate to see what right-wing media could bring to the table. It wouldn't be as clean for neutrality, so to speak. Carlinal (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

An absolute majority of people have nothing to do with "far-right-wing platforms" (most people found this out through influencers like this one or this one +1 - and all statements from these videos can be easily verified by anyone through web archives).

Please explain which "conspiracy theories" are you referring to, and with high likelyhood all the "theories" can be confirmed by archived statements from employees of this company. Moon darker (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, 'influencers' covering content arising from right-wing platforms still means the content is stemming from right-wing platforms. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It is true that involvement of Sweet Baby Inc. was initially discovered on platforms like 4chan. However what Carlinal tried to do here is nothing else than substitution of concepts. The fact that it was discovered there doesn't change the fact that it got much more traction elsewhere among left-, middle- and right- wing actors.

Example: The fact that USSR launched the first artificial satellite doesn't make all artificial satellites soviet. Moon darker (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this is confusion but none of my edits (on the main page) tried to substitute anything beyond the section title and the mention of DEI, and it's a stretch to accuse me of something like that. The "conspiracy theory" mention is from the Mary Sue source, where the phrase appears several times, and knowing how contentious this subject is, I tried to create the best summary without any inaccuracies or accusations of substitution.

Also, what I mean by "all stemming from significantly far-right-wing platforms" is just Kiwi Farms, 4chan, and subreddit r/KotakuInAction, all of which are also mentioned on the main page. I never extended that to YouTube commentators, nor do I mean to. The former three are the few, if not only right-wing platforms mentioned altogether that are currently on the Wikipedia article, including reports of Sweet Baby from other publishers. I guess the last two sentences in my previous response are in bad faith, but from a glance the two YouTubers also seem to be taking clips OOC. I'm not watching those videos anyhow just to prevent anymore contentious edits than the ones I did now. If the YouTube videos Moon darker provided are included in a reliable source or are reliable themselves, that's your call. Carlinal (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No. It isn't. It's gamers who aren't happy about the situation making themselves heard. This is the fans expressing why the games Sweet Baby worked on received such a negative reception from gamers.

Interpreting it as harassment is simply a strategy which we've, of course, seen before. 92.28.184.225 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You can critique Sweet Baby as a company without harassing its employees directly, as many have. It's not inaccurate to call it harassment. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Advert

@TE(æ)A,ea.: What parts of the article do you feel are written like an advertisement? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Rhain: (1) Could you upload the Sweet Baby logo locally (and in reduced resolution)? I've nominated it for deletion on Commons, and happened to notice that you uploaded it there. (2) As I said, most discussion of "the company's operations" (as you put it), both in general in the lede and the history of the company in the "History" section, are not neutral statements but rather promotional. I'm looking over the "controversy" section now ("Online backlash" is a bad name, but I'm not sure what current policy is for section names), so I'll get to that later; if just taking the company's own description of itself is advertisement, it's still an advertisement to repeat that description when it has been uncritically reported in news articles. (3) Is there a policy about now citing articles which are incorrect? When checking the source for one of the quotes in the "Controversy" section, I found a number of errors, and was thinking about removing it (even though it's from an accepted source). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

For the "harassment and doxing attempts" comment, the second article attributes the "doxxing" comment directly, and general harassment allegations later in that paragraph, to Belair. The first article is what I meant in (3)—it seems a very poor example of journalism to use to substantiate such an inflammatory claim. Did the Kotaku writer talk to Sweet Baby employees and/or CEO Belair for that point? Or did she copy it from another article and take out the important context that changes the meaning of the "paraphrased" information, like she did for other DEI-related comments? That is why I thought that the Kotaku article should be avoided. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• (1) No, I'll let the deletion discussion run its course. (2) Can you be more specific about what you think is promotional? Something like "The company is good at improving narratives" would be promotional—simply stating "The company consults on narratives" is not. (3) Yes, the Kotaku writer spoke to several Sweet Baby employees. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding; although I would like more than a denial, that's for other participants. Just an example from the lede, "the company consults on video game narratives during development to promote safer working environments and diverse representation within game narratives and studios" is purely promotional; the company could copy that text and put it in a corporate advertisement for its services. The long-form article does attribute both the doxing attempts and claims of harassment (in the paragraph discussing doxing attempts) to the CEO; the Kotaku article contains no attribution (which seems to be common in Kotaku writing), which leads me to believe that the information also originated from Belair. The third paragraph of the "Controversy" section seems to devote several sentences to discussing what individual journalists think of specific claims, which seems to me to be inappropriate; I'll look over the articles a bit more, but I'm tempted otherwise to simply delete the whole paragraph and add the few descriptive sentences to the preceding paragraph. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
    • "The company successfully achieves" or "the company is good at" would be promotional; "promote" is accurate. It's not up to us to speculate who said what to the Kotaku writer; all we should do is state the information and reference it appropriately (which we have). It goes without saying, but I would strongly recommend against deleting an entire (well-referenced) paragraph without discussing with other editors first. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Rhain: I don't think that it is appropriate to describe a controversy relating to a company by stating what individual journalists think; that's not information about the controversy, it's the personal opinions of various journalists about the controversy. That's why I suggested deleting (most of) that paragraph. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. They're journalists publishing things as fact in reliable sources. If you want to present their conclusions and descriptions as contested opinions, you need to present other sources of similar weight disputing them - and even then it would just become something we present with attribution as a dispute, it wouldn't mean they get removed. But you can't simply declare something to be the "opinions of journalists" and remove it based on personal disagreement. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• These seem to be mostly what the sources say, though. It's not promotional to summarize that. If you think it's summarized differently elsewhere or that we're getting the sources wrong, you can point to other sources and say how you feel we should summarize them; but you can't reasonably tag an article as promotional because you disagree with coverage of the subject. If mainstream coverage is largely positive, then it's largely positive, and our article has to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Aquillion: The problem is that the summary is promotional, not neutral. I'm looking at the other sections now, though, so I won't be editing that line at the moment. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm simply not seeing it, and I don't think you've identified anything actionable. If it reflects the sources then it's not promotional; and we're required to state things that the sources state as facts, as facts. You're drastically rewriting the article, but you haven't really provided any new sources, and for the most part your changes seem to diverge from or downplay what the sources say - if the sources say something, then we need to reflect it, even if you personally disagree and therefore feel that it is promotional or mere opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It is important to note that neutral doesn't mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia is supposed to adopt the position of the best sources. When that coverage is positive, so too will be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issue with how this article is written. The controversy is presented as covered by RSes, which as Aquillion and MrOllie point out, is written without creating a false balance. The coverage of this controversy in RSes is clearly weighted in Sweet Baby's favor and credulous of the points being made by Kiwi Farms, and while we can make sure attribution is used (which is why the quoting and naming of game journalists writing about this is correct), we cannot try to bury the fact that this is lop-sided in coverage in the RSes. And there's clearly no overly promotional tone. --Masem (t) 01:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

Hello, I read through this article and noticed that it has several bits of false information, and it does not let you access the sources which lacks all integrity of the article. I would like access to review the sources for accuracy and to make honest sourced changes to the page. The changes i would like to make is in regards to the online harassment and backlash. Sweet Baby Inc was not harassed by the curator Kabrutus nor did he ever attack them, instead he made a curator list on steam that merely ties the company to several games they have worked on, and attached links to his valid sources. Sweet Baby Inc then started a harassment campaign against the curator for no reason other than making their existence public for consumers to make informed choices on their purchases. Personally I find the lack of integrity on the article be pretty damning, and while I don't feel that I am the best person to write the changes, it needs to be fixed regardless. Edits for Integrity (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed edits must be supported by reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)