Darran@Retro Gamer wrote:You do realise that Wikipedia is about as reliable as a tortoise with 4 broken legs winning a race right?
I would take exception to that, as I'm very involved in the video game project over there (the group of editors that govern and try to improve all video game related content). Articles that use reliable references throughout and have passed GA (Good Article) and/or FA (Featured Article) status are very reliable. These entail a process of peer review on all aspects of the article. Granted, a bulk of the articles have not reached that status (which is the goal of all articles on Wikipedia) but to dismiss them all because of that missconception would be about as reliable as that quadriplegic tortoise.
CraigGrannell wrote:At one point, the Marble Madness and Defender articles were over half paraphrased lifts from RG articles I wrote (with citations aplenty, obviously, which Wikipedia—wrongly—would argue is fair use). Rather bizarrely, the Super Sprint article still argues that game has an ending (something repeated in RG recently, unless I'm going bonkers, so someone at RG Towers uses Wikipedia!) Robert Weatherby's response to me (included in the RG making-of) about that nugget of info was that he had absolutely no idea where it came from and that it's garbage.
Maybe you're just not familiar with the Wikipedia editing process? Articles are expected to back up all content with references to "reliable" sources, sources that meet Wikipedia's qualifications on verifiability and reliability. A main tenet being a source must demonstrate editorial oversight to even be considered reliable. Hence RetroGamer along with various books, etc. routinely get used as sources in video game articles and paraphrased where necessary.
It's one of the reasons that brought me to the mag, as I had been seeing stuff cited at Wikipedia from here that just wasn't accurate. Hence I had contacted Darran about helping out with fact checking, and the rest as they say is history.
As for stating Wikipedia as if it's some sort of entity, that's just not the case. It's an open editing platform, articles are created and evolved by people like everyone here. Anyone can edit it. If something's wrong it's up to you to change it then, but you have to make sure it adheres to the guidelines (including references) or it can wind up reverted or even edited as well down the line. Just because anyone can add or change content doesn't mean that edit will stay. There is an editorial oversight process there, even though it's slow moving. It's all volunteer.