Quoting: LoudTechieThis 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.

Quoting: eldakingWikipedia'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own published information about itself isn't acceptable, but a news article with that information is - even if it is outdated), they often don't recognize technical expertise or peer reviewed research (scientists and academics have a hard time correcting factual mistakes because of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.

Quoting: BlackBloodRumThis 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

Quoting: Linux_RocksI 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.

QuoteMy 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