While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:
Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.
This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!
You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.
This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!
You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register
- New Linux kernel patch submitted to improve Lenovo Legion series support including Lenovo Legion Go
- Team Fortress 2 Comic issue 7 is finally, officially available
- Steam Replay for 2024 is live to show off all those hours you played
- Proton Experimental gets fixes for Final Fantasy XIV, Nioh: Complete Edition and more for Steam Deck / Linux
- Stalker 2: Heart of Chornobyl gets a massive patch with an AI overhaul and lots of A-Life fixes
- > See more over 30 days here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources
According to this 2016 discussion, one of the sticking points was this place not having a listed editorial and ethics policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steam_(service)/Archive_8#There_are_2,000_games_for_Linux
I see an ethics policy is now currently listed, but is there any kind of editorial policy?
It is true that given this site is owned personally by Liam it might be forever considered a self-published blog, but I do note that being independently owned does not automatically preclude it from being considered reliable (see, for example, Adventure Gamers or InsideMacGames).
It would help if there are any references from already reliable sources asserting Liam's expertise in this subject, as evident as it may be to all of us already. Unfortunately the closest I can find are the links featured below.
https://libregamewiki.org/GamingOnLinux#External_links
This is probably the closest, but even if OSNews might possibly be reliable, as a guest post this one presumably is not.
https://www.osnews.com/story/25328/the-state-of-linux-gaming-2011/
Likewise these interviews.
https://linuxgamingcentral.com/posts/interview-with-liam-from-gol/
https://archive.is/8rtos
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Last edited by Technopeasant on 11 October 2024 at 1:22 pm UTC
View PC info
I rather trust my own critical thinking skills than let an external entity determine it for me.
And in case of doubt, we can always have a good discussion about it.
This one forwards to a gambling website:
https://linuxgamingcentral.com/posts/interview-with-liam-from-gol/
I think the link is dead.
https://www.thegamer.com/valve-confirms-steam-deck-follow-ups/
https://www.vgchartz.com/article/455068/report-steam-deck-ships-over-1-million-units/
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/openblack-is-a-an-attempt-to-recreate-lost-god-game-black-white-in-a-modern-open-source-game-engine
https://www.gamesradar.com/next-gen-steam-decks-will-be-more-open-and-capable-valve-says/
https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/pc-gaming/mac-is-relegated-to-third-place-thanks-to-the-steam-deck
https://www.pcgamer.com/steam-deck-competitor-is-already-talking-to-valve-about-adding-steamos-support/
https://www.pcgamesn.com/tomb-raider/tomb-raider-is-heading-to-linux-according-to-a-steamdb-update
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/modders-polish-metal-gear-solids-pc-master-collection-with-ultrawide-support-sharper-textures-and-more
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/linux-video-of-the-week-limit-theory-game-developer-switches-to-linux
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/steam-deck-crosses-12000-verified-and-playable-games-threshold
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/fps/the-circle-is-now-complete-the-developer-of-an-open-source-port-of-dark-forces-who-consulted-on-the-nightdive-remaster-is-working-on-putting-the-remaster-back-in-the-source-port/
I could go on and on and on and on again.
Heck, even Dexerto have linked to us on X: https://x.com/Dexerto/status/1775974117256110257
How much more do they need lol
Ofcourse the master of linux gaming scoops knows all his references.
You miss an editorial policy.
Edit: Also added an editorial policies section to the Ethics page.
Edit 2: made a new references page.
Last edited by Liam Dawe on 11 October 2024 at 12:47 pm UTC
Oh, I find this politics incredibly frustrating. It's not that I don't appreciate the need for source verification, but having an imperfect source should be better than none (especially given there are already higher standards imposed for riskier situations like biography and medical articles). I would impose a tier system wherein readers would be able to see how reliable a source is deemed with an incentive to upgrade to a higher tier source if possible. As you say, this would encourage media literacy and awknowledge no source is the perfect truth.
Wikipedia is overly cautious of people trying to self-promote, which is good in theory, but there are obvious loopholes that bad actors can exploit (use a sock puppet to avoid identification, fabricate citations through a press that is ill-equipped to verify your claims) but honest individuals (that disclose these possible conflicts of interest, that don't fabricate meaningless sources) have little recourse and are often treated with hostility. Trying to appeal obvious mistakes is treated as suspicious in itself.
I'd say to not sweat about this - wikipedia has not been able to verify the reliability of GOL due to their own limitations, and it should not matter much.
Well yes, but any publication (especially a huge and influential one like wikipedia) has to make their own decision as well - and allowing everything and letting for readers to sort it out is one of the worst decisions they could take, instantly exploitable and flooded with the worst of the worst. Their policies on the subject are are in fact an important data point for determining whether they are "reliable" or not.
Yes, I have now corrected this thanks.
Last edited by Liam Dawe on 11 October 2024 at 1:26 pm UTC
https://youtu.be/AXCWYKSjHnI?si=jmzguKLzjEI3QieH
https://youtu.be/GbGH3m8eRNg?si=3RaM-gNevgK3q5oH
A lot of this being a subset of their ridiculous "notability" doctrine.
Most universities (well, in the UK at least) stance is pretty much "You can use Wikipedia, but check other sources and do not rely on it or cite it.", reasoning being the lack of proper references and the fact that anyone can edit it.
That is another thing entirely. One of the main reasons wikipedia is not acceptable for universities and academic work is fundamentally the wiki structure: academic work must be able to cite authors clearly and directly. A source without a clear author, edited by multiple people, is just not acceptable.
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is also a tertiary source, a compilation of data already published and referenced by other parties. Academic work is expected to engage directly with primary sources, or at least with well-established secondary sources: you are supposed to go deeper and find the original research and review all the relevant literature. Going for a traditional encyclopedia would also be frowned upon: either you go to the original research, or at least to a specialized book. However, it would be appropriate to cite wikipedia as a primary source - for example, when talking about wikipedia itself.
Wikipedia itself does not advise its use for academic work, and explains all of that and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia
The important takeaway is not that you can't cite wikipedia because it is unreliable or untrustworthy, but because it is not and does not try to be an academic source. The very reasons it is great as a general source for the average user makes it inadequate for original research.
View PC info
Last edited by Technopeasant on 12 October 2024 at 12:18 am UTC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Gaming_on_Linux
View PC info
Jason Scott (director of the internet archive) lays down some of the fundamental problems with wikipedia pretty well in this talk, way back from 2006:
https://vimeo.com/10741713
With respect to current political topics, wikipedia articles are outright dictated by the US State Department:
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-loving-founder-and-wikimedia-foundations-regime-change-operative-ceo/
It's not all that different when it comes to historical topics, I might add.
The main use of that website is that of a link aggregator - on 'non-sensitive' topics, it can be a good source of links to original articles, and that's about it.
I expected that answer and sadly I do not have much to counter it, especially since the other occasional contributors use nomme de plumes.
I might circle back to argue it being a good situational source, with Liam a testified expert in Linux gaming.
But hey, at least you're a "nice read".
Last edited by Technopeasant on 17 October 2024 at 2:45 pm UTC