The only one I deem able to accurately determine what is or what isn't a reliable source is me.

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.

GamingOnLinux is currently listed as an unreliable source according to Wikipedia's WikiProject Video games, although it (almost inevitability) is currently cited greatly on the "Video games and Linux" article.

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).

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?

This one forwards to a gambling website:
https://linuxgamingcentral.com/posts/interview-with-liam-from-gol/

I think the link is dead.

We're linked from various other mainstream gaming outlets all the time.

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

We're linked from various other mainstream gaming outlets all the time.

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.

Let me know how it goes and if I need to do anything more, happy to provide.

Let me know how it goes and if I need to do anything more, happy to provide.

Based on technopeasant.
You miss an editorial policy.

For now I've done a small expansion on the About Us page, which also now has links to the Privacy and Ethics page.

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

Thanks for the links Liam, I admit Google failed me as "Gaming On Linux" is a somewhat unspecific keyword. I will try and open a new discussion on GOL as a source and see if I can at least get this listed as a situational source for Linux specificly.

The only one I deem able to accurately determine what is or what isn't a reliable source is me.

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.

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's policies are severely flawed on this front. They overvalue news over primary sources (so for example an organization's own published information about itself isn't acceptable, but a news article with that information is - even if it is outdated), they often don't recognize technical expertise or peer reviewed research (scientists and academics have a hard time correcting factual mistakes because of it). The mechanisms for establishing trust are often just lacking, and rely on forms of external validation that aren't viable for most things. And there is a fair amount of discretion that long-time mods can exercise, and some are infamous for their bad attitude.

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.

The only one I deem able to accurately determine what is or what isn't a reliable source is me.

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.

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.

This one forwards to a gambling website:
https://linuxgamingcentral.com/posts/interview-with-liam-from-gol/

I think the link is dead.

Yes, I have now corrected this thanks.

Well the new references page clearly shows other major publications trust what I cover here including Kotaku, PC Gamer, Ars Technica, RockPaperShutgun, Tom's Hardware, The Verge, Linus Tech Tips have shown us in multiple videos, PCGamesN and the list goes on.

Last edited by Liam Dawe on 11 October 2024 at 1:26 pm UTC

They also overvalue obscure print sources over digital, which leads to issues like these:

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.

Wikipedia's policies are severely flawed on this front. They overvalue news over primary sources (so for example an organization's own published information about itself isn't acceptable, but a news article with that information is - even if it is outdated), they often don't recognize technical expertise or peer reviewed research (scientists and academics have a hard time correcting factual mistakes because of it). The mechanisms for establishing trust are often just lacking, and rely on forms of external validation that aren't viable for most things. And there is a fair amount of discretion that long-time mods can exercise, and some are infamous for their bad attitude.

This is very true, you'll find most universities won't even accept Wikipedia as a reference for your work, which is ironic when you consider how picky Wikipedia for references. But their own pickiness of excluding some verifiable sources is to their own detriment.

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.

This is very true, you'll find most universities won't even accept Wikipedia as a reference for your work, which is ironic when you consider how picky Wikipedia for references. But their own pickiness of excluding some verifiable sources is to their own detriment.

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.

I feel like there's a silent dictatorship on Wikipedia with some editors. I also don't take it seriously on some subjects and roll my eyes when people reference it.

Wikipedia remains fairly good for reading, just a nightmare for editing beyond minor tweaks. Main thing is I want to protect the Video games and Linux article, and source ports, engine recreations, and free software games where GOL is often one of the only secondary sources on the topic (alongside DSOGaming, which is also blacklisted).

Last edited by Technopeasant on 12 October 2024 at 12:18 am UTC

I have opened the discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Gaming_on_Linux

I feel like there's a silent dictatorship on Wikipedia with some editors. I also don't take it seriously on some subjects and roll my eyes when people reference it.

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.

My understanding is that it, while a nice read, is still essentially largely a self-published, one man blog.

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