Talk:Sweet Baby Inc./Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

Hello, I read through this article and noticed that it has several bits of false information, and it does not let you access the sources which lacks all integrity of the article. I would like access to review the sources for accuracy and to make honest sourced changes to the page. The changes i would like to make is in regards to the online harassment and backlash. Sweet Baby Inc was not harassed by the curator Kabrutus nor did he ever attack them, instead he made a curator list on steam that merely ties the company to several games they have worked on, and attached links to his valid sources. Sweet Baby Inc then started a harassment campaign against the curator for no reason other than making their existence public for consumers to make informed choices on their purchases. Personally I find the lack of integrity on the article be pretty damning, and while I don't feel that I am the best person to write the changes, it needs to be fixed regardless. Edits for Integrity (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed edits must be supported by reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

NOTFORUM.

You can see from far away that the article is clearly managed by parties involved in the action and is in no regard objective. It fails to inform the readers that the majority of the backlash occurred after Sweet Baby Inc. incited their followers to falsely flag the Steam user, attacking not only the group but also him personally. The curator at no point incited people not to buy games with their involvement. It only notifies interested parties about this aspect. Also, why isn't there any mention or citation of the attack SBI employee planned on Twitter (now X), which got their account limited? (if not terminated at this point) Wikipedia is going to ruin if it allows non-objective parties to intervene in editing articles. Bestbattle (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Preventing such interventions is precisely the reason we do not allow original research (WP:NOR) and instead require reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Good luck with that brother, Wikipedia is very bias and the Mod will hit you with "ReLiAbLe SoUrCe" excuse but of course at the same time Kotaku is a reliable source(even tho they shouldn't be considering they're history of missinformation and during Hogwarts Legacy controversy they justified harassment twords of everyone who plays that game). Even Know Your Meme did a more fair and reliable description of the SBI controversy. Wikipedia is a joke. 86.120.101.244 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Then why waste your time here? Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Back to kiwifarms you go. Shoo. 80.47.185.238 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2024

Remove the following as there is no valid source for the claims:

Theories about the studio included that it was controlled by investment company BlackRock (directly or indirectly), that it forced Remedy to make Saga Anderson black (which game director Kyle Rowley denied),

The first site being referenced, aftermath.site makes the claim that BlackRock is believed to be controlling Sweet Baby Inc. But there is no source for this theory in any form, let alone in any significant proportion. (Is Aftermath.site even a valid source according to the standards?)

Additionally, there is no source for the claim that Sweet Baby Inc forcing Remedy to do anything is a prevalent theory. Both the linked sources link to a quote tweet that simply says "The prevailing theory is that if it weren't Sweet Baby, Saga Anderson would have been portrayed by a white woman."

There is no mention of or allusion to "force" in the provided source. JustHereNStuff (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The first source says That’s where the conspiracy theory – by necessity – had to go big. Some have come to believe that Sweet Baby’s services were being forced on developers by corporate overlords obsessed with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives, which in turn were born of a desire to secure ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) investment from gargantuan firms like Blackrock and Vanguard. ... So now people are running around suggesting that Blackrock indirectly or directly controls a tiny narrative studio, which in turn controls the video game industry. (And there's more about it later on, but that seems to back up our summary.) Similarly, the second two sources say The theory is that the consultant is somehow forcing diversity into games, but even that isn’t true. The belief that Saga Anderson, the co-protagonist of Alan Wake 2, was ‘race-swapped’ after Remedy received feedback from Sweet Baby Inc., stems from a teaser from Quantum Break where Saga is portrayed by Malla Malmivaara, a white actress. and Alan Wake 2 game director Kyle Rowley took to X (formerly Twitter) on March 3 to dispel rumors that Sweet Baby was the reason protagonist Saga Anderson was Black (a rumor first traced back to the aforementioned October 2023 Kiwi Farms post), which seem to back up what we say in the article. If you disagree with the sources or feel that they misinterpreted things, you can write to them suggesting a correction or find other sources of comparable or greater weight that disagree; but we don't require sources to provide the full details of their own investigation - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we summarize what sources say, we don't try to rebut them. I will point out that both of the latter two sources seem to be summarizing their entire investigation across Reddit and discord, not just a single tweet - eg. the latter traces it back to the Kiwi farms post. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Really? Not a single mention of Chris Kindred @itskindred ?

NOTFORUM, yet again.

The article goes into complete bs territory with associations of kiwifarms and what not, but you conveniently "forgot" to have any mention of @itskindred on twitter sparking the entire controversy by openly calling for the harassment and false reporting of the steam group, for which she was also suspended for a week. You have all kinds of reminders on here to assume good faith and conspiracy theories and what not, but the very event which started the entire controversy on a back then less than 7k member group, somehow didnt make it into the article after an entire week of discussion. Yeah no. The spark that ignited this entire thing was Chris Kindred, which turned a 7k group nobody cared about, into yet another culturewar flashpoint, and whoever edited this article, deserves no good faith cause they are lying intentionally. 2A02:AB88:D8C:7380:6914:637B:CF18:ED58 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the information. Do you have any reliable sources we can use to include this in the article? A reminder that everyone should assume good faith on Wikipedia regardless of your opinions. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Are Kindred's own words on social media not reliable enough for you? Will you not believe he made those publicly-visible posts unless Kotaku decides to report on them? This is how yellow journalists get away with fabricating false narratives. Android927 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC) To be clear, while Kindred is not named, this information has been present in the article since its creation (in mainspace). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Do you have reliable sources?" - Wikipedia article editors intentionally obfuscating facts via omission

NOTFORUM

This is direct criticism directed towards the Wikipedia editors responsible for the SBI-article as well as those here on the Talk-page refusing to correct misinformation. Repeatedly, registered editors have replied with "do you have reliable sources?" when people explained how the current version of the article is plain wrong. When sources are being mentioned, it is dismissed under the guise of "social media posts are not accepted on Wikipedia". That much would be somewhat okay (albeit still weird in the year 2024, when much official stuff takes place on Twitter and co.), if the consequence then would have been to remove the article due to a lack of sources that display the entire situation. This didn't happen as of now. Instead, websites such as Kotaku, IGN, Eurogamer, Polygon and others are accepted as "reliable sources". The issue here is that all these websites have long joined an ideological side in this dumb "culture war" or whatever you want to call it. I'm not calling for any side, the point is: These traditional news media all intentionally omit key information from their articles, because only so can they push the narrative that SBI critics are "evil". Altright, nazis, women hater, homophobes, transphobes, racists, bigots, etc. - these websites call everyone who dares criticizing SBI that, whether it is directly so or via established wording (like calling it "GamerGate 2.0" which has long since strongly connotated to all the aforementioned insults). And these websites are now accepted as "reliable sources" by Wikipedia-editors such as "Rhaine", "Dumuzid" or "MrOllie" or "Jester". Instead of listening to the people voicing their criticism (we're not doing this for fun ...), we're being further vilified by being told that we "believe" something, when all we're doing is pointing out factual errors. We're being told to make this Talk-page a "battleground", which for all the time being was not the case, again, we were only pointing out factual errors. At this point, it is SO weird how all these registered Wikipedia editors fail to grasp what the issue is: That by omitting one side of the ongoing situation entirely, you create a false image of the situation as a whole. It doesn't matter what side I'm on, behavior like this would be bad for any ongoing situation. Nobody her wants you to change the article to say "the critics of SBI are heroes, fighting for justice". No, all we desire is that you include EVERYTHING in the article. IF that is not possible because you insist on your "social media posts are not allowed as source", then the only reasonable cause of action would be to remove the entire article. Take it offline, wait until the situation is over, then report after the fact when all facts are bared in the open. Right now, the article only benefits bad actors who will use it as ammunition for their agenda ("See, everyone, even Wikipedia says these guys are bad!!1, it's OFFICIAL!!!1"), allthewhile you kept saying that you have no interest in taking a role in this situation. Well, you're doing that right now in this moment. A neutral position would either add key information to the article or, if that's not possible, unpublish it until further information becomes available. After being threatened by Wikipedia editor Jester, I expect the worst after posting this topic, but I also hope that this reaches someone in position of power on Wikipedia who wants to prevent Wikipedia becoming an anti-factual place that exists for pushing agenda that certain editors find themselves siding with. One last time: The critics of SBI are not nazis, nor women haters, nor racists or anything like that. The current version of this Wikipedia-article insinuates exactly that, though. I won't accept being called that. I have done nothing to deserve it. Thx. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Just to be 100% clear, the underlying complaint here, whether true or not, is that these consultants were responsible for more diversity in video games? Do I have that correct? Dumuzid (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) No. The complaint is that SBI came under criticism for ojectively terrible stuff their employees and CEO said, like "I want to erase all white leads from gaming". As for the diversity, the disagreement is between "forced diversity" and "natural diversity", which I explained somewhere else on this Talk-page. Gamers criticize the way SBI forces diversity into games even at the cost of the quality of the games. They (myself included) are NOT against diversity in video games, though. Just do it in a way that still results in a great game. An easier to understand example would be Disney, which has created many bad movies now that put diversity in the front of center. That's ultimately bad for minorities, too, because now diversity is being connotated with "bad movies" when it comes to Disney. Nobody can want that. I wrote the above to answer your question, not because I'm making this a forum discussion. The critics of SBI are NOT anti-diversity per se. Which is what Kotaku and co. claim in their articles. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) I don't doubt that your views are what you say -- but can you see how someone reading that response might believe that you are against diversity, at least to some degree? Dumuzid (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC) That's exactly what the defenders of SBI want to achieve, hence why it's so difficult to argue our cause. Yes, I can see how it's easy to misunderstand the critics of SBI. What I find hard to stomach, however, is how anyone can read/listen to the statements made by SBI employees/CEO and defend that. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC) I have my own disagreements with SBI, but that's beside the point: Their statements can (and often have in this case) be taken way out of context, especially twisted by those who want to push an agenda. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) SBI's statements have not been twisted or taken out of content. We're talking about videos and tweets that can be seen in full length and in all the context necessary. I'm not saying that you didn't come across some bad faith-stuff, but I'm talking about primary sources which are there for everyone to see. Well, except on Wikipedia as of now. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Does the CEO in the GDC talk saying that she's empathized and enjoyed stories with white male leads change anything here? I've not seen that brought up as much by SBI's critics. I could also just be taking that out of context, and that's why just saying "oh we never take their statements out of context" doesn't work, and why just using that talk on its own isn't enough as a source. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC) You're welcome to try to get policy changed, but we're not going to set aside the policies we have on this one article. That includes the deletion policy. Even if we agreed that this article should be 'unpublished', we couldn't do it because policy does not permit that. MrOllie (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC) So you have a policy that forces an anti-factual article to stay online? MrOllie, are you mocking me? You guys keep pointing at the good faith-rule, but you're really doing your hardest to make me break it :/ 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Any more personal attacks, and you'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC) There was no personal attack, I asked a question, because of the good faith-rule. As someone who cares about Wikipedia, why do you allow the article to stay online in its current form? All arguments have been mentioned, there's nothing anybody could say to convince you more. You threaten my with a block for a perceived "personal attack", meanwhile you allow a Wikipedia-article that calls me a nazi, women hater, racist, etc.. And I'm supposed to accept that? Fantastic ... 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC) The Wikipedia article calls you no such thing, no matter how many times you like to repeat it. (And no, the article mentioning Gamergate is not the same thing.) Your insistence on repeating this claim is becoming disruptive and is not relevant to these discussions. If you have genuine concerns about the way you are being characterised in this article, perhaps consider the NPOV noticeboard. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC) I reject the premise of your Loaded question. MrOllie (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC) See WP:FLAT - The request for sources (likely) isn't them trying to beurocratically process you. It's the nature of the project. If we analyze and interpret tweets, it would fall under WP:Original Research. We're all volunteers on this project, not professional editors at all. We're users of this website, as much as you are. You are however welcome to open an WP:RFC to gain consensus that the sources as unreliable, if you so wish. Just make sure you lay out your argument strongly and with cited evidence. It's the nature of the project. It may seem like you're being asked of a lot for it, and you are, but that's the nature of the project. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) And the vast majority of editors who pen accepted edits for these types of articles do so with the clear aim of editorializing at the behest of left-wing culture-war leaden websites. After all, they are the only "reliable" source that is accepted on Wikipedia! Fact or fiction need not get in the way, because trying to discern truth from lies would fall within the realm of WP:Original Research. Thus, the only logical thing to do is to fill an article about a trending topic with complete nonsense from so-called "reliable" sources. And, if enough "reliable" sources echo each others' lies, boom, there you have it, you have a sufficiently sourced article! "Reality", as far as it exists for the sufficiently unsophisticated academic that would use Wikipedia take its sources at face-value now will come to be that Sweet Baby Inc. devs were doxxed (No evidence required) and harassed (No evidence provided). No wonder there are people are calling this controversy "GamerGate 2", it's going to have just as much of a factually incorrect and bad-faith article as the first! 2600:6C44:5F7F:DC78:E8D9:60D7:E790:B345 (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) It's the nature of the project. I, and a lot of other editors, tend to avoid politically charged areas of this website because they often rely heavily on politically charged articles. If something is unsourced, it's not going to be accepted. Wikipedia isn't an academic publication, it's an encyclopedia that documents what publications say. From WP:FLAT which I linked before, "Wikipedia reports the prevailing views not because they are believed correct, but because they are the most mainstream and accepted available given our current knowledge. If Wikipedia was available in a time where the mainstream view was that the Earth was flat, Wikipedia would have reported such as correct." DarmaniLink (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Advert

@TE(æ)A,ea.: What parts of the article do you feel are written like an advertisement? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Rhain: (1) Could you upload the Sweet Baby logo locally (and in reduced resolution)? I've nominated it for deletion on Commons, and happened to notice that you uploaded it there. (2) As I said, most discussion of "the company's operations" (as you put it), both in general in the lede and the history of the company in the "History" section, are not neutral statements but rather promotional. I'm looking over the "controversy" section now ("Online backlash" is a bad name, but I'm not sure what current policy is for section names), so I'll get to that later; if just taking the company's own description of itself is advertisement, it's still an advertisement to repeat that description when it has been uncritically reported in news articles. (3) Is there a policy about now citing articles which are incorrect? When checking the source for one of the quotes in the "Controversy" section, I found a number of errors, and was thinking about removing it (even though it's from an accepted source). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

For the "harassment and doxing attempts" comment, the second article attributes the "doxxing" comment directly, and general harassment allegations later in that paragraph, to Belair. The first article is what I meant in (3)—it seems a very poor example of journalism to use to substantiate such an inflammatory claim. Did the Kotaku writer talk to Sweet Baby employees and/or CEO Belair for that point? Or did she copy it from another article and take out the important context that changes the meaning of the "paraphrased" information, like she did for other DEI-related comments? That is why I thought that the Kotaku article should be avoided. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• (1) No, I'll let the deletion discussion run its course. (2) Can you be more specific about what you think is promotional? Something like "The company is good at improving narratives" would be promotional—simply stating "The company consults on narratives" is not. (3) Yes, the Kotaku writer spoke to several Sweet Baby employees. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding; although I would like more than a denial, that's for other participants. Just an example from the lede, "the company consults on video game narratives during development to promote safer working environments and diverse representation within game narratives and studios" is purely promotional; the company could copy that text and put it in a corporate advertisement for its services. The long-form article does attribute both the doxing attempts and claims of harassment (in the paragraph discussing doxing attempts) to the CEO; the Kotaku article contains no attribution (which seems to be common in Kotaku writing), which leads me to believe that the information also originated from Belair. The third paragraph of the "Controversy" section seems to devote several sentences to discussing what individual journalists think of specific claims, which seems to me to be inappropriate; I'll look over the articles a bit more, but I'm tempted otherwise to simply delete the whole paragraph and add the few descriptive sentences to the preceding paragraph. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
    • "The company successfully achieves" or "the company is good at" would be promotional; "promote" is accurate. It's not up to us to speculate who said what to the Kotaku writer; all we should do is state the information and reference it appropriately (which we have). It goes without saying, but I would strongly recommend against deleting an entire (well-referenced) paragraph without discussing with other editors first. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
      • Rhain: I don't think that it is appropriate to describe a controversy relating to a company by stating what individual journalists think; that's not information about the controversy, it's the personal opinions of various journalists about the controversy. That's why I suggested deleting (most of) that paragraph. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. They're journalists publishing things as fact in reliable sources. If you want to present their conclusions and descriptions as contested opinions, you need to present other sources of similar weight disputing them - and even then it would just become something we present with attribution as a dispute, it wouldn't mean they get removed. But you can't simply declare something to be the "opinions of journalists" and remove it based on personal disagreement. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• These seem to be mostly what the sources say, though. It's not promotional to summarize that. If you think it's summarized differently elsewhere or that we're getting the sources wrong, you can point to other sources and say how you feel we should summarize them; but you can't reasonably tag an article as promotional because you disagree with coverage of the subject. If mainstream coverage is largely positive, then it's largely positive, and our article has to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Aquillion: The problem is that the summary is promotional, not neutral. I'm looking at the other sections now, though, so I won't be editing that line at the moment. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm simply not seeing it, and I don't think you've identified anything actionable. If it reflects the sources then it's not promotional; and we're required to state things that the sources state as facts, as facts. You're drastically rewriting the article, but you haven't really provided any new sources, and for the most part your changes seem to diverge from or downplay what the sources say - if the sources say something, then we need to reflect it, even if you personally disagree and therefore feel that it is promotional or mere opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It is important to note that neutral doesn't mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia is supposed to adopt the position of the best sources. When that coverage is positive, so too will be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issue with how this article is written. The controversy is presented as covered by RSes, which as Aquillion and MrOllie point out, is written without creating a false balance. The coverage of this controversy in RSes is clearly weighted in Sweet Baby's favor and credulous of the points being made by Kiwi Farms, and while we can make sure attribution is used (which is why the quoting and naming of game journalists writing about this is correct), we cannot try to bury the fact that this is lop-sided in coverage in the RSes. And there's clearly no overly promotional tone. --Masem (t) 01:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Game Developer

Moved from User talk:Fizzbuzz306

@Fizzbuzz306: Game Developer is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia per long-standing consensus at WP:RSP and WP:VG/RS. If you disagree, you're welcome to start a new discussion regarding its reliability; I would recommend doing so at WP:RSN or WT:VG/RS. Until then, please do not remove it as a source on articles, like you did here. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes Fizzbuzz306 -- I apologize for contributing to the back-and-forth, but as Rhain has says, current consensus is clear. Therefore, to me, removal on the basis of Game Developer's unreliability is untenable. Consensus can change, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Online backlash and harassment"

Shouldn't the section just be named "harassment"? Including both words feels redundant Trade (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Backlash" doesn't equal "harassment". One can argue article doesn't cover "backlash". At the same time it doesn't cover actual "harassment" directed towards the Steam curator. That's why the best course of action is to remove this entire section completely due to WP:RECENT, WP:NEWSORG and lack of WP:PRIMARY for direct citations (and lack of neutral news sources in general). Moon darker (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Not going to happen. And as our RSes say, the harassment was towards the Sweet Baby staff. If there was organized harassment of the steam group curator, that's not been reported at all. Masem (t) 18:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

RSes cite no primary sources on the harassment towards the Sweet Baby staff, nor do they provide any new information on their own. RSes just repeat what Sweet Baby staff members claim. Regarding the Not going to happen., truly WP:NOTSOGREAT material. Moon darker (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't have to "show their work" -- we trust them because they meet the Wikipedia standard of reliability. As for repeating claims, I am not sure which sources you have in mind, but you may have a point. If the source says "X claims Y," then we should not state Y as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. If, on the other hand, the source plainly states Y as a fact, then we can do so. If you have examples like that, by all means, point them out. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

To add, given that these RSes stated that they looked at the various forums (kiwifarms and Kia) it can be taken they identified the nature of harassment, if they say that happened. The Kotaku and Aftermath articles are very much in depth looks into what was happening, so it is not like they created whole narratives just on a few claims from Sweet Baby. Instead the articles are written to investigate why the Sweet Baby employees made the claims and didn't necessarily take their word up front. Masem (t) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Criticism is not harassment.

Meanwhile you are fine with the Steam group members being called "nazis" and such? You're not subtle enough ... 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Our article doesn't use the word 'nazi' anywhere. Please see WP:NOTFORUM and keep discussion focused on the article rather than the topic in general. MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How are the reader supposed to know which part of the section is referring to the online backlash and which part the harassment? Imho it would be better to split the section in two for clarity Trade (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The two are intrinsically linked, so I'm not sure splitting the section would provide any additional clarification—and it's only three paragraphs long anyway. I'm mostly apathetic about the section title itself, though. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition re: "possibly one of the biggest scandals in gaming history"

In the section detailing recent events, the first sentence is currently:

In October 2023, Sweet Baby attracted negative attention on Kiwi Farms, a web forum where a user described the company's involvement with Alan Wake 2 as "possibly one of the biggest scandals in gaming history"; similar posts were shared on sites like 4chan and Reddit community r/KotakuInAction.

This left me confused about what it is about Alan Wake 2 that was being decried as the "biggest scandal". Based on the sources we are using (and echoed in additional sources I read online), I think we should add that the context that the "scandal" regarding Alan Wake 2 is that one of the protagonists is a Black woman. Something like:

In October 2023, Sweet Baby attracted negative attention on Kiwi Farms, a web forum where a user described the company's involvement with Alan Wake 2 as "possibly one of the biggest scandals in gaming history", because one of the protagonists is Black and a woman; similar posts were shared on sites like 4chan and Reddit community r/KotakuInAction.

However, I think we should also add that that this was believed to be the result of Sweet Baby's involvement but that this belief turned out to be false. I'd change it myself (and may yet) but I'm having trouble expressing the information concisely. Thoughts or suggestions? CIreland (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I might be missing something in the references, but I don't think any of them explain why it was described as a "scandal" besides simply the studio's involvement. While your suggested change is probably correct, I don't think it's reflected in the sources as of yet. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is in the sources currently present - Kotaku is explicit: "Alan Wake 2 game director Kyle Rowley took to X (formerly Twitter) on March 3 to dispel rumors that Sweet Baby was the reason protagonist Saga Anderson was Black (a rumor first traced back to the aforementioned October 2023 Kiwi Farms post). “It’s absolutely not true,” Rowley wrote.". The Aftermath source also mentions the Black female protagonist as the cause of complaint regarding Alan Wake 2, although it doesn't use the "biggest scandal" quote. CIreland (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Media Matters source

So I just learned of this Media Matters for America source which hasn't been added yet presumably because of MMfA's status as marginally reliable. But per WP:MEDIAMATTERS, could this get a review if it hasn't already? Carlinal (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It supports the Ministry of Truth agenda, no confirmation needed, go ahead and use it freely. Moon darker (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not the review I needed. Carlinal (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that source yet—good find. I've added it to the article: one usage is for a non-controversial statement, and the other is attributed. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's almost like we're selectively picking and choosing articles based on what fits the desired narrative. "marginally reliable" be damned. 104.167.150.247 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, we're "picking and choosing" what is reliable based on Wikipedia's guidelines. This is no great secret and has been made repeatedly clear. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Or you are selectively refusing to adhere by your own standards on what a reliable source is. 104.167.150.247 (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It was already established in WP:MEDIAMATTERS that MMfA isn't entirely reliable, but there's still some good in it as well, so case-by-case reviews of pages are done. All of this is acceptable based on the overall quality that the publication has for certain topics compared to others and that alone, which also happens with other news sources, even Fox News. Well, that's the best I can explain it. Rhain is adhering to this as much as I am. Carlinal (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to editors: Assumptions of Good Faith and culture warring

A reminder to all editors on this talk page, particularly the sudden influx of new editors and IPs seeking to turn this page into a battleground -- this is not the place to fight your culture wars, nor a place for advocacy, nor the place to right what you perceive to be great wrongs. If you've come to this talk page for those reasons, you're in the wrong place and this is your warning to stop now, review our policies, and edit constructively. We also expect editors on Wikipedia to abide by our guidelines requiring you to assume good faith. This means if you're here for the purpose of complaining about how horrible and biased that Wikipedia is because the article doesn't reflect your preferred POV, you are again in the wrong place and this is a warning to stop. If this behavior continues, editing restrictions will be imposed on this talk page to *make* it stop. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As someone who's been calmy voicing criticism on this talk-page (distancing myself from your "how horrible and biased Wikipedia ist" - on the contrary, I think Wikipedia is doing a great part usually), this isn't about creating any "battleground", it's about criticizing an article that in its current form misrepresents an ongoing situation and Wikipedia-mods being unwilling to make changes, arguing "social media posts and GDC-video talks are not a source", which on one hand is weird in the year 2024 where most news and companies talk on Twitter and such; on the other hand, if the ENTIRE side of a situation is being dismissed because its sources only exist on Social media, because the other side intentionally omits important details, then one would expect Wikipedia to remove the article/relevant section entirely until proper sources exist that depict the whole situation without leaving out important details.

It doesn't matter who supports which side of the situation, it is a mere fact that one side is the only one getting cited right now, while the other is ignored. The reason for that being that all the big gaming websites have nurtured a "culture" in recent years where they sacrifice journalistic integrity in favor of ideological agenda - something Wikipedia, as I know it, does not.

If nothing else gets through to you, Jester, let me just tell you this: As a member of the group that criticizes SBI, all I can say is that I'm not a nazi nor a woman hater. Even if the sources Wikipedia uses make such claims. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

To turn the phrase, if nothing else gets through to you, IP, please understand that the above warning was directed at exactly the type of behavior you've exhibited above. "Wikipedia-mods being unwilling to make changes" is wildly off-base; Wikipedia doesn't have "mods", because this is not a forum; it has volunteer administrators who are here to address conduct and behavior issues by the editors on this topic, and what you refer to as "unwilling to make changes" is in fact us enforcing the website's core policies. Nobody has accused you here of being a "nazi" or a "woman hater". Making allegations that "the other side" (note: that's textbook "battleground" language) is "intentionally ommitting important details" is not an assumption of good faith. Complaining that your chosen "side" is being ignored while what you perceive as the "other side" is being benefited, is again, textbook "battleground" behavior. Whatever beef you have against "all the big gaming websites" is irrelevant here. Leave it at the door. This page and it's talk page are part of a designated contentious topic and nobody is obligating or forcing you to edit here; it is a choice, and one that assumes that you will be held to a higher standard and closer scrutiny in editing behavior. If you're uncomfortable abiding by that, you're welcome to constructively edit less contentious areas of the project. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know how to begin, because you seem to have it out for me already. All your "this is textbook battleground language" tries so hard to turn my comment into something it wasn't intended to be. And yes, I had the hunch that you were referring to me with your warning, hence why I felt the need to reply to you, because threatening me for what I posted in the discussion above is unfair.

You say nobody is calling me a nazi or woman hater, but the sources you allow for the article do. Meanwhile all the sources that explain why me and the group I chose to join criticize SBI are being ignored as "invalid sources". Which, if social media is taboo, I can understand. What I cannot grasp is why you intentionally ignore the obvious omissions to the situation in the allowed sources. If given sources are insuffcient to paint a complete picture, then I cannot comprehend any other solution than to remove the entire article until sources come to exist that fill in all the details. Details that are plain in the open right now, it just so happens that Kotaku, IGN, Eurogamer, Washington Post, etc, refuse to include them in their article. So now I would ask you "what can I do so that you include statements from SBI's staff and CEO where they say 'I want to erase all white leads from gaming'?", but honestly I shouldn't have to do anything here, YOU want Wikipedia to be place of facts, you've been told by many people here on this Talk-page what is missing in the article, so you have all the information to know that the article in its current form has no place on Wikipedia.

Again: I don't think it's fair that Wikipedia spreads an article that calls me a nazi and woman hater. Just because I support a group that criticizes an ideological form of diversity. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And you're welcome to believe all that, whether it's got a basis in reality or not. My point remains: you have been duly warned that you are venturing into an area of Wikipedia with a heightened level of scrutiny and requirement for compliance with our policies and guidelines on constructive editing, and if you cannot do so, the consequences of that choice lie with you alone. It's really that simple. There's nothing further for me to add here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Just for better understanding: I haven't been editing the article at all. Or do you mean with "editing" that I reply here on the talk page?

That aside: It's not about believing. That's the point ... 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As I indicated in the original post, which was directed at all editors, I'm referring specifically to this talk page (though the same policies and considerations apply to the article too).⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the article's sources use the terms "Nazi" or "woman hater"—not that it really matters, since it's not our role to police them anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Here's what I answered Dumuzid:

"The articles you cite as source do, comparing it to GamerGate which, at this point of time, has been strongly connotated as a rightwing/nazi movement full of women haters and such. You do know that, come on. And these people will now abuse Wikipedia's authority and spread the article here to further "prove" their limited perspective. It's a self-fueling machinery right now."

Your role is not to police them. Your role should be to make Wikipedia a place of facts. This article is currently an ideological hitpiece that will be used by those defending SBI. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, not incorrect—none of them use the terms, regardless of what connotations you believe. Just as it's not our role to police the sources, it's also not our concern how others will "spread the article"; our only role here is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources. All the best. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, you use the word "believe" for what I present you.

At this point I fully distrust you, Rhain, and I would like to report you to higherups at Wikipedia. If you kindly would tell me how to, because there's no immediate report-button anywhere.

Unlike you say, your role is to write a facts-based encyclopedia. Omitting key-data is the opposite of facts-based. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As Lord High Governor General of Wikipedia, you can always report to me, but if you'd like to tell me exactly what you would be reporting Rhain for, I might be able to point you to a relevant noticeboard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Best place might be WP:ANI, but you can check out WP:PNBD for a full list to see if there's a more specific noticeboard. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please become self-aware. 122.213.236.124 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Source 21

"Both underwent purges of content after their moderators were contacted by Steam and Discord staff about potentially violating terms of service."

In the source itself, it implies that the members/moderators are warning themselves on the discord, no interaction from discord staff. No source from the Journo either to confirm, using vague language.

https://steamcommunity.com/groups/sweetbabyinc-detected/announcements/listing this would be a better source for the steam group. As it clearly states from the source that they were contacted.

on thier discord itself there is no mentioned of being contacted by discord staff. and i am unable to find a concrete source saying they were. I know one individual were warned by discord staff but for an unrelated note. CodeDJay (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — CodeDJay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sounds good; can you point us to the editorial policy and fact-checking record for the Steam group? Dumuzid (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Here are the relevant quotes from the Game Developer ref (emphasis mine):

  the groups' moderators indicate the companies have warned them that content on their platforms may result in their being removed

  "a influx of severe bad actors" led Steam Support to reach out to the group in some fashion.

  the Discord server's moderators were informed that content on their channel risked violating the platform's terms of service

Hope that helps to clarify the sentence. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Baby Sweet Inc and media leaving out context

All the fuzz started when one of SBI's employee harassed the creator of the Steam Curator List which only points out which games are SBI involved into, an information that is public in its website.

Also, that very same employee wanted the Steam account of the curator list banned and all his money gone. 2A0C:5A81:E112:2E00:9C18:8359:EFE6:B84 (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If you were a reliable source, this would be very helpful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The screenshots of the tweets of the SBI employee calling for the (BLP violation removed) and mass reporting of the Steam group, with timestamps are widely available on twitter. Stop being dishonest. 2001:E68:6240:D900:4555:B5D6:C40:733 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't deny those tweets existed, we just can't just use them alone as a source. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We could use Template:Tweet and include one of them on the side, if we have a RS documenting that it occurred to make the tweet relevant. Without the source documenting it, including the tweet would be a non sequitur. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Marvel's Spider-Man 2

"Belair responded that Sweet Baby's work was to improve narratives generally rather than being solely focused on diversity and inclusion; she noted gamers thought the studio had simply added pride flags to Marvel's Spider-Man 2 when it had actually provided narrative work for about three years, including several levels and character arcs."

The work done on "Marvel's Spider-Man 2" have been criticized (by both "gamers" and journalist)for at launch having miles family having the wrong associated flag with the family being up. A detail a consulting firm such as Sweet Baby Inc should of picked up on. With "gamers" associating the mistake with the company as they worked on the game with Insomniac.

The quote goes at odds with the information provided and exclude some "valid" criticism made against the company.

https://gamerant.com/spider-man-2-ps5-update-patch-notes-cuban-flag/ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/controversy-erupts-over-flag-mix-up-in-marvels-spider-man-2/articleshow/104680622.cms?from=mdr https://twitter.com/Bolverk15/status/1767229128166515001 https://twitter.com/ChurchOfGame/status/1766209791456624821 Idontz (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the incorrect flags to Sweet Baby Inc.? I see nothing that connects them. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a critique people have brought up against them believing they should have responsibility for catching such an issue.

Which seems correct to put out under Online backlash Idontz (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If that critique is covered by any reliable sources, then I agree it may be worth mentioning. For now, it appears mostly relegated to Twitter. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Didn't he just listed two? Trade (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's twitter comments not a general consciences Idontz (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• No, the news sources linked there don't actually mention Sweet Baby that I can see. Obviously, we can't cite criticisms to the tweets. --Aquillion (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I cease my case Trade (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Purges"

Both underwent purges of content after their moderators were contacted by Steam and Discord staff about potentially violating terms of service. [22]

There's nothing in the linked source to support that claim. Quite the opposite, Valve found no proof of wrongdoing from the Sweet Baby Inc Detected list curator.Sharpfang (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The reference says The forums on that [Steam] page have since been removed and The correlating Discord server has undergone a similar, but not all-encompassing purge. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The Steam curator page even says they purged most of the forum comments to make Valve happy. Masem (t) 12:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article

Sideswipe9th mind showing proofs for this statement? Was there a consensus to add this lead? Moon darker (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple large follower accounts currently tweeting about the article and its content on Twitter. Some tweets are directing users to this talk page. Adding that template is warranted given the circumstances, though I'll not be linking to any specific tweets unless a CU, OS, or ArbCom ask for them by email. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, haven't seen those yet. Moon darker (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There are rules against linking to canvassin? Trade (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any, but sometimes it's best to deny recognition. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected this talk page for a week. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum to discuss the topic. That means that if you have strong feelings about this topic, you'll have to find somewhere else to air them. There are almost an infinite number of websites where you can do this. Wikipedia is one of the very few where you can't. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or expose the truth. You can start a blog if you want to do that.

This is also not a general complaint forum. You can't use this talk page to complain about how Wikipedia operates. This page is specifically for discussing improvements to Sweet Baby Inc., the Wikipedia article. You can learn how Wikipedia operates by reading through our policies and guidelines, and you can suggest changes to them in our discussion forums. If you have questions about whether sources are reliable , you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard or check Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources to see what your fellow editors think about video game sources.

Finally, Wikipedia has somewhat stricter rules than you may be used to. We require civility during discussions, forbid personal attacks and defamation, and require you to stay on-topic without repeating yourself endlessly or refusing to acknowledge that you've been given an answer. Arguing endlessly is considered the norm on most websites, but it's considered disruptive on Wikipedia. We're here to write encyclopedia articles, not to argue about culture wars.

Create an account to edit this page. If you already have an account, you'll have to wait until you're autoconfirmed. That happens after 10 edits and 4 days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting

I just removed some names of journalists (I may have missed some):[1]. They add no value/understanding to the text, interested people can find them in the cites. If any of these people have WP-articles, that's different. IMO, this is inline with the spirit of WP:BLPNAME. Feel free to disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure BLPNAME necessarily applies to journalists in this scenario but in retrospect I agree it's probably best to err on the side of caution with this topic—and little value is lost by their removal anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem true to me. Giving the names of people who said stuff in the news is fairly standard attribution; there are hundreds of articles where we do this. I've written a few which passed GA; I believe WP:INTEXT is the relevant guideline. jp×g🗯️ 17:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." is reasonably on point here. The views aren't included because of the people (none of them are a Charles Darwin as in the INTEXT example), but because of the publication. Not having them there is no loss. But it's within editorial discretion, there's certainly no "intentionally concealed" going on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfair sourcing situation results in biased, misrepresenting article

Here's what Wikipedia-editor MrOllie wrote in another reply:

"Wikipedia's standards for sourcing can be found at WP:RS. We use secondary sources from commerical publishers, mostly. We cannot and will not use blogs, social media, or other self published materials in a situation like this one."

This is problematic, because here we have situation where the very thing that triggered the entire situation happened on social media and similar (SBI employees and CEOs saying stuff like "I want to erase all white leads from games"). Meanwhile the terrible, unbased reaction from video game journalists is being taken as a valid source by Wikipedia-editors because they're not social media.

How can we expect a factual, truthful Wikipedia-article when one side of the topic at hand dominates the entire traditional news media, while the other side can only rely on social media posts? Just because you say "this is Wikipedia's standards" doesn't help the situation. If you really refuse to acknowledge all available sources that are important for the topic, then you'd be better advised to remove EVERYTHING until relevant sources appear that cover the whole thing and not just the one-sided accusation you find right now on traditional news media.

I hope this whole situation is quickly being reviewed. The people criticizing SBI are not the bad guys here. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We're not going to set aside Wikipedia's content policies for this one article. If we used 'all available sources' anyone could write anything and put it into the encyclopedia, which is obviously untenable. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie, I'm applying to your common sense here: You KNOW that the article as it exists right now is wrong. It omits obvious, important points that would paint the entire situation in a different light compared to what the article says right now. Since you're a registered Wikipedia-editor, you must care about facts. So pls, I beg of you to change your mind and provide a solution to the current dilemma. If you do not accept sources that prove important counterpoints, then wouldn't the 2nd best solution to remove the whole text about the current situation and wait until it is resolved, wait for a more complete picture? The Wikipedia article as is only functions as ammunition for those targeting the critics of SBI, further branding them as vile nazis or whatever.

I hope you can see that. Otherwise I'll try to get ahold of a Wikipedia-admin (not a threat, just laying down my planned action), because the current situation is absolutely unacceptable. I'Ve been using Wikipedia my whole life, trusting its factual nature, and now I'm witnessing myself how an anti-factual article is being protected. That mustn't happen on this website. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I care about sources, and I do not KNOW the article is wrong, because I don't believe everything I see on twitter. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But you also clearly do not know that the article is right, either. So when in doubt, why not take down the entire thing and wait for more information? What kinda standard is that to keep an article online that "might" be wrong?

And "I dont believe everything I see on Twitter" is very condescending. Nobody needs to believe anything. The tweets of employees and CEOs are there for everyone to see. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. You're asking the wrong questions. We care that the article summarizes the sources we have, because that is what we do here. You're trying to get Wikipedia to confirm to a vision that it is not designed for. MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You're ignoring important sources for one side of the situation, while only accepting sources of the other side. This results in an article that tells a story that's not based on reality. Who benefits from this, other than the supported side who will use Wikipedia as "evidence" for their claims?

At this point I'm not sure whether you're a Wikipedia-die hard who lost sight of what Wikipedia is supposed to accomplish over the rigid rules it has, or actually a supporter of the SBI-defenders who call all critics "harassers" and worse.

Once again, I ask you to see this. The article right now creates a fake-reality. Wikipedia isn't fiction, is it? 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't care about 'sides', but I do care about publishing standards. We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here, so I don't have to care about sides. MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You are aware that the current decisions of yours lead to an article that creates a fake-reality. I cannot understand how you fail to see that and how sourcing rules are more important than a factually incorrect article. If sources for a factual article do not exist, Wikipedia used to un-publish the entire article. Why not now? 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If sources for a factual article do not exist, Wikipedia used to un-publish the entire article. Why not now? So far as I am aware that has never been the case, because Wikipedia editors aren't in the business of evaluating facts separately from what is verifiably sourced. The way we determine what is factually correct is by following the sources. You are aware that the current decisions of yours lead to an article that creates a fake-reality. I do not agree with your premise there, but I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on it because that is not the purpose of this talk page (or Wikipedia in general). MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

By leaving the article online as is, you're making yourself part of the debate. Again, you support that one side of the situation is completely unheard, creating a fake-reality in which SBI is the victim and its critics are labeled "harassers" and worse. Assuming good faith, you appear to be someone who cares about Wikipedia and I can respect that. But then I don't understand why you allow misinformation to be spread on here. You don't want to be a part of this whole situation? Then unpublish the entire article and wait until reliable sources that cover all sides appear. That would be a mature, responsible stance. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

why you allow misinformation to be spread on here.. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are the only mechanisms we have to prevent the spread of misinformation, and they are being followed carefully here. Since we are now repeating ourselves, I do not plan to respond to this thread any further. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I do require it, because you have shown no consideration for the big problem at hand. At this point, I have no choice but to assume you support the side defending SBI. Otherwise as a responsible editor, you'd remove the entire article in light of no succint sourcing existing. Disappointing. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty insane that real-time events on social media unfolding are completely ignored as these editors refuse to reexamine the journalistic integrity of these sources. Sources that have been caught time and time again fabricating stories and omitting important context. While I don't think it's useful to get into a pissing argument with the editors, I do agree this article should be taken down for objectivity's sake. I think wikipedia's biggest problem is the overreliance on sources that tend to staff problematic writers. 66.97.145.64 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"I care about sources" I've looked into the Wikipedias "Reliable Sources" list And Kotaku is a situational one and Kotaku very article(about SBI) is very opinionated. Kotaku shouldn't be used here as a source because of this. Something that other user said: "I just checked this. 6 of the 10 sources in the "Online backlash and harassment" Section, All refer back to the Kotaku Article. (Kotaku is the 11th) Eurogamer, MediaMatters, Mary Sue, GameDeveloper, TheGuardian and Aftermath, all uses the Kotaku article as a source for what they are saying. 2A02:2F08:3001:8400:8441:BECF:F5E2:2460 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are admins watching this page and more than one who are active on it. So, by all means, reach out as you see fit. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you link me to an admin's talk page then? I'd like to reach out. Thx. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Have at it here[2]! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You said aminds are watching this page, so I thought you could link me to someone who's been watching, not give me a list of all of Wikipedia's admins ... 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Masem is probably the most familiar with the video game milieu. Dumuzid (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Second this. The articles cited in this page are not only lying by ommission, but have largely been debunked by the greater community and/or community noted with evidence that contradicts their very claims. It's ridiculous that this page has been locked for a year as it's rife with misinformation about both the organization and the community. 66.97.145.64 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is good reading to explain Wikipedia's position on this. Flat earthers have all sorts of social media posts that 'debunk' NASA, and we don't use those either - we must stick with reputable publishers, otherwise we have no means of quality control at all. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We are comparing a largely debunked flat earth theory that has been established as psuedoscience for hundreds of years to real-time false reporting of a company's practices into harassment and lying by omission. I completely understand the need for quality control but when the control is not of "quality", then it defeats the entire point of it. These sources lied, simple as that. 66.97.145.64 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

These sources lied, simple as that. That's exactly what they say about NASA. Whom are we to believe? We'll update the article if other reliable sources show up to contradict what we have. MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

comparing Flat Earthers to false-real time reporting is a false dichotomy. 66.97.145.64 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And yet if we followed the sourcing standards you would have us use, Flat earth would be a very different article. MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

this is hardly the gotcha you think it is, but I concede since we refuse to be nuanced. 66.97.145.64 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Instead, if we had an article about a pro-flat-earth consulting firm which covers a section about a niche issue, such as a boycott, and a few writers in reliable sources would write a distorted narrative about said niche issue, the article would just repeat the distorted narrative of these "reliable" sources. What a lovely situation for Wikipedia's integrity. 84.56.223.185 (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You're using literal whataboutism as a defense here. Dressing up the entire discussion as "he said/she said" while hiding behind "sources", but can't extend that impartiality to "the other side" when it actually matters (which is all the time).

This is a complete lack of ethics and integrity, much less a logical argument. AirNinja (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Using an analogy to point out that Wikipedia has the policies it has for good reason is not 'whataboutism'. MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's sadly a massive flaw with Wikipedia's policy's itself, if primary sources state facts, but a secondary source that is "Reliable" (Even if demonstrably and repeatedly proven false via primary sources) reports on something, by policy, the factually incorrect article is to be treated as undeniably true regardless of primary facts. It's a massive appeal to authority fallacy.

Of course such a discussion is better held elsewhere because it'd require an entire sitewide policy rework, However for hot and opinionated topics that ends up with more than one side vying for information real estate I'd argue it'd be a necessary policy change to maintain the spirit of Neutral Point of View. It's far easier to present primary facts that are archived and observable than trying to fight between opinion and hit pieces that happen to come from sources that at one time achieved Reliable Source status.

As the policy stands, and with actors that are determined to "Win" more than present a highly factual article that allows the reader to be highly informed with citations that can be observed and allow the reader to come to a conclusion with neutral language.

Just see how this particular commented into accusations of Flat Earth'ing when such a notion is defeated by demonstrable fact. If NASA were the only source reporting on the Earth with pictures and tests you could observe and repeat yourself, but a Reliable Source author went rogue and started saying that the Earth is flat and NASA conducted a harassment campaign against them, WP would have to side with the reliable source over the primary source with citations and evidence that can be observed. Katacles (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lots of people on social media and the like believe they've debunked all sorts of things. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong; but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that sort of original research. We cover things the way reliable sources do, which means that if someone has a novel theory of some event that they think disproves the mainstream conclusions, they need to get it published somewhere reliable first. We can't include (and can't even combine sources to imply) something just because some discord channel or subreddit or the like believes it to be true. --Aquillion (talk)

Regarding Of course such a discussion is better held elsewhere because it'd require an entire sitewide policy rework, -- @Katacles:, or anyone else who would wants to pursue that discussion, that place would be at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, while the place to address the long-term reliability of a specific source would be at the Reliable sources noticeboard. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for linking me to the Reliable Sources page, I never gave it the proper look at that it deserved, often just glossing over and looking at what is counted as a Reliable Source.

I've noticed it says that a Reliable Source Isn't always reliable or unreliable and that context matters, and I feel that everyone on this talk page would benefit from observing these guidelines on this topic, especially in regards to Verifiable and Well-sourced material which I feel a few of these articles simply do not meet the scrutiny we should have for such a volatile topic.

Thank you, I'm going to posit an argument elsewhere in hope of finding neutrality and keeping this site at a high quality. Katacles (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV - yet again.

First off - this article and the way it is written damages the reputation wikipedia has.

1. I know we have to find sources, but the sources used are, whilest deemed reliable, one sided and, frankly, not 'reliable'. In any other circumstance we would have the use of {{cite tweet}}. While Social media is volatile in it's core, there are more than a good share of tweets out there that are qouteable.
2. It is, as we can clearly see an ongoing event, so why is there no pointer to that? Just push it under the rug and hope the internet forgets?

Anyhow, let us begin. In the Introduction:

In 2023, the studio became the target of online users who claimed it promoted a "woke agenda".

sources? Who claimed that and, where? if you say Twitter, then why isn't it sourced? (as per the above)

The Sentence, to at least be somewhat NPOV should either be

In 2023, the studio came under criticism because online users claimed it promoted a "woke agenda"

and attach that Kotaku source, if you want, but i'd even remove that entirely because it in itself is not neutral in its point of view.

-- Adtonko (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You've been here long enough that you should understand how reliable sources are used. "Cite tweet"'s use for primary sources, since that's what all tweets would be, is almost exclusively for the biographical subject of articles and basic biographical information. Such as someone's birthday. We would not use tweets for anything connected to any controversial subject matter, especially when it involves living persons.

No idea what your second point is. We cover current events all the time and there's more than enough secondary coverage on this subject.

As you should be aware of by now, the introduction of an article is a general, shortened summary of the content of the article. In most cases, you don't use references in it, because the references are in the expanded upon sections in the article body proper.

A reference is not non-neutral just because you dislike the subject matter it is covering. Furthermore, we are perfectly allowed to use non-neutral sources anyways, as neutrality has nothing to do with our reliable sources policy. We use plenty of known biased political news organizations, for example. Silverseren^C 03:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

So, we have a section of an article that is based in/on social media. And said Social Media is denied as Sources. Lovely.

Second Point is different from my home wiki, but apparently, enWP does it this way. But my point of NPOV of the sentence still stands.

I never said that we are not allowed to use non neutral sources. I said that it's one sided and thus the other side should be evaluated, too. But because the 'other side' is not a 'reliable' source (Social Media) you can't source it. Hence this counts as NPOV from the get go. Adtonko (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason we don't use social media directly is that it requires interpretation and other aspects of WP:NOR to explain the importance or relevance of the messages, which we can't do. We rely on reliable sources that are known for fact checking and editorial oversight to identify which of those social media messages are most significant and how they apply to the topic, so that we can summarize a topic within the scope of WP:N without engaging in original research , hence why we say "verifiability, not truth". Masem (t) 04:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)