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)

You don't see a problem with citogenisis in action, using unreliable sources? I mean come on. Many of the articles being used as "sources" on the claims are coming from the very organizations that (BLP violation removed). 2607:F2C0:EEC6:2B:6DC0:DAFC:4D0C:545C (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That's plain bullcrap. How can you be sure, just because the sources are in support of the company? Carlinal (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

One CAN'T be sure, either way. That's why the neutral language is required here. The issue of whether SBI is doing only what normal consulting firms do, or engages in dishonest practices (like "terrify these people into giving you what you want" as in the circulated clip of SBI CEO) lies at the heart of the entire conflict. Automatically assuming SBI does just what consulting firms do is exactly, strictly siding with one side of the conflict and directly rejecting evidence the other side offers. Sharpfang (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Your comments here alone are cause for you to be removed as an editor on this topic. Unless you work for SBI (in which case you *definitely* should not be editing this article), the fact that you claim to possess objective knowledge about how the company operates and therefore should be exempt from the NPOV principle demonstrates that you are not neutral on this matter. Android927 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss my conduct, the best place is my talk page or WP:ANI. If you believe I have a conflict of interest, the best place is WP:COIN. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:36, 13 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 (BLP violation removed) statements too, just as a fact - people working in [SBI] posted [this] commenting on this topic. Covering SBI co-founders methods of (BLP violation removed) 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)

Tweets of employees and CEOs are not enough, but then you're using biased, immensely one-sided articles at face value to paint SBI as the victim, as well as individual shitposts from singular people as evidence that the critics are <insert bad word>?

I will be open here: I'm a member of the Steam group and all it does is list games with SBI's involvement. Without any judgement on the Steam page. As for WHY people join, it's to oppose "forced" diversity. This is in contrast to "natural" diversity. So the people criticizing SBI are not against diversity per se, as you and your source articles claim, but is only against the amateurish inclusion of ideology in video games and other media, resulting in worse games and movies. A popular example is an npc that you meet right after leaving the space ship in the beginning of Mass Effect Andromeda and the first thing this character tells you, a total stranger, "btw I'm trans". This is "forced" diversity. It adds nothing, it only makes the game feel less immersive, like someone put that in just to force it down people's throats. An example of "natural" diversity would be Olivier from "Trails in the Sky", who is bisexual and constantly hits on both female and male characters, but it never feels forced, because it's befitting his character as an easy-going, charming bard.

So again, we are FOR diversity, but against forced diversity based on ideology. And nothing about the group has to do with alright, racism, bigotry or any of the terrible claims you make. Yes, there's a lot of unhinged idiots flinging around insults, too, but that's what happens when one side basically controls the entire industry and for years has pushed big game publishers to abide by their "consultation".

You can now either update the SBI entry to make clear that there is no harassment against the company going on, that it's a wider anti-DEI movement with "anti-forced diversity" at its core, or I guess you can continue to publish a factually untrue article on Wikipedia, damaging the entire website's reputation. And, of course, not mentioning any of the terrible things SBI employees and CEOs have said, which triggered the whole thing to begin with. Please be better, Wikipedia. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're this upset about bad writing, there's plenty of outrage waiting for you in the wider world. I appreciate your offer to make an exception to Wikipedia's policies and five pillars, but I, for one, will pass. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia's policy on [No primary sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) means in conflicts of Journalists vs Public, Wikipedia will be completely biased towards journalists, as their side's articles are secondary sources (accepted) while public's evidence to the contrary is primary sources (rejected). That's the unfortunate state of affairs, and only by finding secondary sources (press articles) to the contrary the bias can be reversed. Sharpfang (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thatdarkplace.com

Theshortcut.com

Breitbart.com

Retro-replay.com

Game8.co

Do any of these work?? All of them mentioned how SBI employee started a mass report campaign against the curator group and the personal steam page of the curator groups creator. Kaijyuu2016 (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Kaijyuu2016 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. TheDarkPlace is a personal website with no reputation; TheShortCut is a substack blog, again with no reputation. Breitbart has not only been affirmed as unreliable and deprecated in multiple WP:RFCs, it is on the spam blacklist (see WP:BREITBART) due to constant abuse, meaning it can't even be cited as a technical matter without a special exception. Retro-Replay and Game8 also look, at a glance, like blogs with no reputation. WP:RS is about having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as well as editorial controls and the like, so personal websites or blogs rarely qualify. Reliability is to an extent contextual, and unexceptional, uncontroversial statements with no implications for the reputations of living people can sometimes be cited to lower-quality sources; however, the things people want to add here using sources like these would likely run afoul of WP:BLP or WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which requires high-quality sourcing. Aside from Breitbart, whose unreliability is extremely well established, this is all just at a quick glance - if you think one of these actually does have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, you could bring it up at WP:RSN... but I doubt they'd be usable here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You realize Kotakus Wikipage says Gaming Blog ErrgoProxy (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on any other aspects, but I'd certainly disagree that "Game8 also look, at a glance, like blogs with no reputation". I can't say whether it's reliable (that would be a discussion of it's own in the appropriate place), but it's pretty big for walkthroughs/guides, often being one of the first results. It goes far beyond your regular blog. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Just following up, the reliability of Game8 was discussed here, but it doesn't seem it's been looked into beyond the name and tagline. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Kotaku's "unreliability is extremely well established," yet you do not seem to have any problems holding up its writings as objective descriptions of reality. 2600:1700:3902:880:8835:4F86:88F9:A16B (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

fully agree, this article is way too bias for WIKI Edits for Integrity (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Edits for Integrity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

fair enough. i figured that was the case but it was in response to me. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Wikipedia does lack integrity. Idrawrobots (talk) 21:16, 12 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)

As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia values reliability of actual article authors over the platform the article is posted on. I shared my observations on article author, Alyssa Mercante, multiple times on this page. Moon darker (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat confusingly, reliability can take in both authors and the publications in which they appear. I am not sure whether you think Mercante or Kotaku in general should be deemed unreliable, but a good step toward either would be presenting your case at the reliable sources noticeboard for others' opinions. Right now it is just you--which is not nothing, but is not terribly compelling. If you can get a consensus on that board for your position, that would be far more persuasive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been covered extensively here, thanks for your input. Moon darker (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that it has not been; I am saying that you haven't achieved a consensus here. You might be able to if you were to go somewhere and focus upon that one discrete issue, but the choice is yours, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

We can't use RSN right now due to an active DRN case. If I remember correctly, you were aware of that, and I hope that wasn't an attempt to throw me under WP:FORUMSHOP bus. If you didn't know about that or that wouldn't result in WP:FORUMSHOP, my apologies. Anyways, thanks for the suggestion, I think this stage will come naturally as a part of DRN case. Moon darker (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

To add, even if one considers Kotaku unreliable, more reliable sources like Euro gamer have taken up the Kotaku article that first covered this and expanded it on their own. We are well past questioning the reliability of sources discussing the concerns at play. — Masem (t) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a huge red flag about your affiliation, I suggest you to disengage immediately. You're openly supporting a person who said this and then doubled down. Moon darker (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care what she said on social media. She's entitled to her opinions, and those don't seem to have influenced her coverage on the backlash against Sweet Baby Inc in any way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Those opinions ended up being posted only due to her coverage on the backlash against Sweet Baby Inc, thus I deem it nearly impossible that it didn't affect the tone or the writing of the article. Moon darker (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't really care what she's said on social media. It does not appear to have influenced her coverage on this topic in any way. What you deem is irrelevant when high quality sources like Eurogamer, PC Gamer, and The Guardian have taken Kotaku's reporting at face value when writing their own articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

eurogamer and pc gamer both use kotaku as their source. the guardian does too but one ups it by making it all a political snuff piece against the alt-right. this isn't a political movement anyways. we are consumers. I myself have democratic values, which leads me to defend against all kinds of racism and sexist as a white person but I always hit a wall when its time to defend hetro-gendered white males. their is no reliable information in this stuff, no verified sources. yet the wiki is ignoring articles through bias merely because they are seen as "alt-right" when these are the articles that ARE posting verifiable sources. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Any time people band together for a cause, there are political implications. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That just puts an issue into a box, people are truly waking up. You cant just label things black and white, again I am not Republican. People have identities beyond the narrow minded point of view of politics. Sometimes things just are the way they are, and the left should be just as mad that a group that claims to be about diversity and inclusion would hold so much hate from within. You can't claim diversity and inclusion when coming from a place of hate and exclusion. we all need to show each other respect and hear each other out. Edits for Integrity (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM, this talk page isn't a place to debate the issue. MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

that opinion was in a direct response to being asked why she did not cover the harassment and racism by Sweet Baby INC, it is directly related at least. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dumuzid Kotaku is not a reliable source. They have been caught lying in favor of their own POV numerous times now 176.199.10.17 (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That may be! But "reliable source" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and it is determined by consensus. That's why I suggest making a case at the applicable noticeboard. If things are as you say, it should be easy to get a consensus that Kotaku is not reliable. Until such a time, I think consensus continues to be that Kotaku is a marginally reliable, if not first-class source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

With that said, the IP isn't exactly wrong that Kotaku isn't reliable (it's a situational source), but that's because they've been pushing AI-generated slop, not because of some woke agenda. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider comparing employees at Nintendo to the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service just because they blacklisted them "AI-generated slop". Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Been pushing it. Doesn't instantly mean the Nintendo comparison is AI-generated. Carlinal (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. What's more is that they are an active party to the conflict and thus have a clear bias. I'd go so far as to say that Alyssa Mercante (the author of the article) is not a reliable source because she is one of those who claim to be harassed. Titor1000 (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, especially since harassment directed towards Mercante (wrt SBI) came after she wrote her article (not that being harassed makes an author unreliable anyway). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

ok which one of you decided to site opinions instead of fact on the sources? noone doxxed them they have their real names and faces on their twitter bio's you cant dox someone who is doxxing themselves. at this point this article should be shutdown temporarily as it just cites opinions and dosent fact check the sources. Mymanjoe24 (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Mymanjoe24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

  whats the course btw, i can't access the source to judge its integrity, and above all that is HIGHLY suspicious. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  source* not course. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  i would argue that with your info posted, that the source used does not fit the standards even more than a single link i posted. I would like to review the source for integrity. it is HIGHLY suspicious that the source is locked. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  You can access the cited sources by clicking on the links in the references section of the article. MrOllie (talk) 17:15, 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)

  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

  Niche Gamer is an unreliable source per WP:VG/S and should not be used in any articles.

  game8 is likely an unreliable source.

  Fandom Pulse doesn't appear to be a reliable source. There's no evidence of an editorial policy or oversight which is required per WP:RS/WP:QUESTIONABLE.

  Geeks and Gamers appears to be nothing but opinion articles. At best it could be considered per WP:RSOPINION, except that they don't appear to have editorial oversight on what is published. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is avoiding factual information that has been documented in the past weeks to paint SBI as innocent and victim of a harassment campaign, fix this.This is misinformaion. Kaijyuu2016 (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Kaijyuu2016 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

exactly no one is harassing Sweet Baby INC, its the other way around for Kabrutus however, HE WAS DOXED AND HARASSED. the sources are plain as day and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter is an article is normally unreliable when they are posting actual sources that can be verified and not just writing whatever someone at Sweet Baby INC or some narrative design program for a game company said, those are exactly what opinions are born from. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

no one from Sweet Baby INC has provided a factual course showing they were harassed, but I am being given nothing about lame excuses to why this page is ignoring the fact that they are defending people that did the actual doxing and harassing. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

again Source* not course. i got them fat fingers lol. Edits for Integrity (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• For things like this, we rely on secondary sources. And in this case plenty of sources have described what happened to Sweet Baby as harassment: [1][2][3] - the last one even gives a fairly detailed description when it notes how the groups targeting Sweet Baby had to purge their posts to avoid violating the terms-of-use, noting that Initially, rants about Sweet Baby Inc. and its work were accompanied by a bevy of slurs, hate speech, and broader far-right conspiracies about "wokeism" and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. You might disagree about how they characterize it, or feel that they're wrong, or dislike those sources; but we go by what the best available sources say, and in this case they're all pretty much unanimous. Reporting a group that - per that source - was, at the time, in violation of Steam's TOS is not characterized by RSes as harassment; whereas the sorts of things described there as part of the way Sweet Baby was targeted are generally what RSes consider harassment. Your personal definitions might differ! Or maybe you just disagree with the facts they state. But we go by what reliable sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, you claim "reliable sources" yet the two first—namely Kotaku and aftermath.sin—of your three listed as "plenty" don't qualify as such as per "consensus" [4]. Hackerman67 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Kotaku is judged on a case-by-case basis; the issue is AI-generated stuff, which I don't think anyone is arguing that this piece falls under. And both discussions on Aftermath leaned towards reliable. If you're unsure, you can ask about these specific uses on WP:RSN for a more specific answer - reliability is contextual - but I don't think there's any question that they'd be found reliable in this context. --Aquillion (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Every source can and should be judged on a case-by-case basis in spite of their previously agreed upon reliability, but in the case of WP:RS, a source quite simply either is "reliable" or not; a source not being outright labeled unreliable does not qualify it as such. In the case of kotaku, it seems a grave mischaracterisation, and quite irresponsible, for you as an individual to claim what "the issue" with it is given its criticism extending far beyond that. In the case of Aftermath, the first discussion was purely speculative, erring on the side of caution, and the second with clear objections, e.g., over editorial policy. Do you have qualifications/expertise for personally deciding it "leaned towards reliable"?

  Your personal "thinking" does not trump consensus, and you ought to revise your apparent habit of misrepresenting the former as the latter.

  I don't think there's any question that they'd be found reliable in this context.

  I question how you came to such a conclusion. There appears to be ample evidence of the very opposite on this very talk page. Hackerman67 (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's always discussion and debate over sources - the only reason Kotaku is currently not 100% reliable is due to AI, otherwise their articles are accepted as reliable. Harryhenry1 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hypotheticals over sources' supposed "100%" reliability aside, the point is over established consensus, or in this case, lack of it.

  By the way, since you seem to share the viewpoint of Kotaku's use of AI as the sole acceptable critique, do you mind explain why other criticism should be disregarded and consensus somehow derived from lack of it? Hackerman67 (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  On Wikipedia, reliability of a work is based on the work having a history of fact checking, and that there is editorial control to prevent incorrect information from being publish and retracting when such errors are found. How much apparent bias doesn't enter into that as long as that bias does not create falsehoods (eg as with sites like Breitbart). Kotaku has shown to have that. Masem (t) 18:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  The conversation is starting to extend beyond the intended scope of a article talk page. I take it that you introduce "apparent bias" as the sole expected "other criticism" of Kotaku as a source, which appears to be demonstrably false and not quite what I was asking, but did in a way did answer my question.

  I understand that you wish to report Kotaku having an editorial policy, which is a requirement for "reliable sources", but whether Kotaku would or should be one is not something to be debated here, but on WT:VGRS. Hackerman67 (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Here's the rub though: given other sources that we have, is Kotaku wrong in the fundamental facts around this (let's not speak to any opinions given), given the other sources that did their own work beyond just Kotaku's own? Even as an editor and looking at the primary sources, I see nothing wrong with the timeline or how they have documented SBI's business.

  We can talk potential bias and one-sided reporting all day, but that doesn't take away from the basic idea that there's clearly nothing wrong with the facts as asserted by the Kotaku article. So that if you look at those past discussions, you'll see that's a conclusion consistent with that. the VG project hasn't demoted Kotaku, only placing red flags to watch for AI or poor-quality, no-effort content, and their article on the SBI situation is far from either of those. Masem (t) 13:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely it is judged on a case-by-case basis, and in this case they are unreliable.

  I don't think there's any question that they'd be found reliable in this context.

  Your opinion does not trump consensus. Your edit history demonstrates a very clear bias and your opinions on this matter are not relevant.

  Kotaku should be completely purged from this article as it is NOT an RS despite your arguments against consensus.

  Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  But what makes this specific article unreliable? What's actually wrong about it? Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest you read this talk page, that has been asked and answered.Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Personal attacks are not a substitute for rational discussion and making them will not help your case. MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's pretty neat that sources like Kotaku and Aftermath can deem harassment to be whatever they want and you admins get to help make it so. What a terrible site. 2600:6C44:5F7F:DC78:E8D9:60D7:E790:B345 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's a difference between actual criticism and outright harassment. It's not a big leap for sources to call thousands of accounts brigading and sending nasty messages to SBI's employees harassment. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Tbh. Kotaku aren't really known to be consistent about that. Trade (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Being refuted is not “harassment” 122.213.236.124 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Being harassed, however, is. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"The group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for failing Steam's code of conduct."

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

HATting this per WP:FORUM. Discussion should be about improving the article, not complaints about Wikipedia policy or assertions that Wikipedia is "shaping the narrative". — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Glad to see the wikipedia editors refusing to be nuanced. 104.167.150.247 (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC) We are exactly as nuanced as the sources we rely upon. That's what we do here, for good or for ill. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Cheers, you're actively contributing in hit piece journalism and refusing to shut down an article that pulls from unreliable sources. 104.167.150.247 (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia is not journalism, so it is not "actively contributing" to anything besides the building of a free encyclopedia. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC) The article as it stands is (extremely biased) journalism, because all the sources it pulls from are by (extremely biased) “journalists”. Maybe consider that a biased source like Kotaku does not and should not have a monopoly on truth 122.213.236.124 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Of course Kotaku should not have "a monopoly on truth"—that's why it makes up less than 3% of the reference list, and less than 10% of citations overall. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) I just checked this. 6 of the 10 sources in the "Online backlash and harassment" Section, All refer back to the Kotaku Article. (Kotaku is the 11th) Eurogamer, MediaMatters, Mary Sue, GameDeveloper, TheGuardian and Aftermath, all uses the Kotaku article as a source for what they are saying. DotEsports refers to "KnowYourMeme" and Asmongold as sources. TheGamer simply refers back to itself. So in terms of representation here, we have 6 sources who all substantiate some of what they are saying, using Kotaku's article. Battle00333 (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC) That's a good thing. Wikipedia editors like it when tertiary sources appear that validate and confirm secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC) There is a difference between tertiary sources independently validating a secondary source, and tertiary sources relying solely on a secondary source for their information. The latter does nothing whatsoever to validate the information in the source. Android927 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) When articles from reliable press pass through their editorial process, it is assumed on Wikipedia that the former took place rather than the latter. MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict) It's logical that most would refer to Kotaku as it was the first major outlet to cover the topic—but it's worth noting that Aftermath and Game Developer both performed interviews with relevant parties, MMfA did its own independent research, and Eurogamer and The Guardian only refer to Kotaku in passing. I don't think the section relies too heavily on any one source. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) By leaving the article up in it's currently form, Wikipedia is helping to shape the narrative. Android927 (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

Omg.

"1 plus 1 is 2"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odd wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page size and archiving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kim Belair image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter ban of an employee

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

^{( 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is Game8 actually an unreliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

So, for me, I would still say unreliable for news content and BLPs, as everything seems to indicate the primary focus of the site is reviews and walkthroughs (for instance, this page about the operating company[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)

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

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

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

I mean [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)

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

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

There has been some WP:USEBYOTHERS pickup of the Aftermath, especially with regard to the exit of Kotaku's last editor-in-chief. It was cited by gamesindustry.biz[7]; Video Games Chronicle[8]; and The Daily Beast[9]. Dumuzid (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Harassment from SBI

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

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

LGBT Activism is not an excuse for bad behavior or bias

A lot of editors on this page are taking the moderation of this article into their own hands, blatantly stonewalling any article that highlights the negative actions of SBI employees as instigators for recent current events, despite multiple credible and even primary sources. This situation is clearly fluid, with more developments likely to pass in the coming weeks. It is painfully obvious, based on the editor profiles for those involved, that personal bias is getting in the way of NPOV. If you are a member of the gaming industry or LGBT community, please recuse yourself from the article. Mechabot5 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)