Talk:Glitch: The Rise & Fall of HQ Trivia

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 February 2023 by reviewer TheWikiholic (talk · contribs).

Film: Documentary / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Glitch poster.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Glitch: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia with HQ Trivia page.

I would like to request that this page be merged with the current HQ Trivia wiki page as it is in close relation to it's history. The documentary trailer mentions it's freezing, glitches, popularity, and even it's crashes. It also mentions the clashing of the the at the time current CEO and co-founder competing for it's CEO position. AlmNack (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a merge necessary. I think we can add a section to the other page about the documentary after it comes out, but I think this probably does deserve it's own page. 108.45.146.94 (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:C906:CD9B:4D96:658D (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns over article content

Hi there - I'm not sure what (if anything) can be done here, but a user keeps updating the page for the film, Glitch: The Rise & Fall of HQ Trivia to create the perception that there has been a ton of criticism and controversy surrounding the film, likely because they didn't like the film themselves. A few things to consider:

- The film currently holds an 86% score on Rotten Tomatoes. There are 6 positive reviews, including a Critic's Pick in the New York Times, but this user keeps suggesting that the film received "mixed" reviews.

- There is a paragraph that has been added claiming that critics argue that the documentary omits key perspectives, notably co-founders Rus Yusupov and Colin Kroll, and former host Sarah Pribis. Colin Kroll passed away in 2018. As stated in the film, Rus declined to participate in the film. And in an interview with The Rolling Stone (https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/drama-vortex-hq-trivia-documentary-1234689333), the film's director, Salima Koroma, said that Pribis was brought in for a pre-interview during filming — it’s just that her story didn’t make it into the final product. Leflop (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leflop,

Our duty is to adhere to and enforce the Wikipedia guidelines.

Here are my thoughts on the issues you raised:

1. **Mixed Reviews**: The Rotten Tomatoes score of 86% does not necessarily represent the entire critical landscape. Wikipedia encourages the use of diverse sources to present a balanced view, as outlined in [Reliable Sources](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources).

The term "mixed reviews" may still apply if other credible sources present differing opinions.

Since you are the original creator of this article it’s entirely possible you may somehow be connected to the film — which raises questions about a potential [Conflict of Interest](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest).

2. **Omission of Key Perspectives**: The editor’s inclusion of information about the omission of key figures like Rus Yusupov, Colin Kroll, and Sarah Pribis is supported by interviews and public information. This aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines on [Verifiability](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and [Neutral Point of View](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). However I agree that redundancy should be addressed as outlined in Wikipedia

3. **Avoiding Original Research**: The updates appear to be an effort to present information reported by reliable sources, not to create a perception of controversy. This is consistent with Wikipedia's policy against [Original Research](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research).

my opinion is that the editor seems to have acted in good faith, adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines.

If there are specific cite errors, it would be more constructive to discuss them rather than deleting valuable content.

And As always it’s better to talk things out for the sake of accuracy rather than unilateral deletions. The last thing we want here is an edit war. EnglishMuffin1133 (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the editor is trying to create the perception that there has been a “ton” of criticism and controversy about the film. That’s a purely subjective interpretation of the contributions. The goal is to provide an accurate and comprehensive picture of the film's reception. If there are sources that criticize the documentary for being one-sided or biased, it's relevant to include them, just as we would include positive reviews. So deleting the two sources in question will result in an incomplete article. Poema yaeli (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate sources with the same criticism, and we're debating inclusion? Sounds like a selective reading club, not Wikipedia. 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:5887:A47D:1751:CAD5 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not debating inclusion, just think there should be a section on reception, which was mostly positive, and a section on controversies? Some reviews were deleted in an effort to shield the positive reviews. And IMO any inclusion of Yusupov, Kroll, and Pribis not being included in the film, should also mention that according to the film and his Twitter, Yusupov was asked but declined participation, Kroll died in 2018, and the film’s director clarified to Rolling Stone that Pribis was given a pre-interview for the film. Leflop (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to the article have been made based on the feedback and concerns raised in this discussion. I believe these changes address the concerns raised and align with Wikipedia's guidelines. 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:C906:CD9B:4D96:658D (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Went into detail around my concerns on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Leflop (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leflop,

The latest updates to the page reflect verified information that the documentary included doctored evidence, which led to its cancellation and removal from streaming platforms. This development substantiates the controversies already mentioned and is backed by reliable sources. Wikipedia's goal is to present a balanced account, not to shield or favor any narrative. 96.232.37.228 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]