Jump to content

User:Datumizer/Discussions/Aggregators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aggregator usage

[edit]

Here is a summation of past discussions on the topic of using aggregator scores on Wikipedia or in the {{Video game reviews}} template.

Things to consider

[edit]

Arguments have been made for or against.

Characteristic Importance
Factual/statistical
accuracy/NPOV
Mid
Usefulness to the reader Mid
"Reach"/popularity High
Extra work involved for
Wikipedia members
Very high
Other Wikiprojects have
policies limiting
aggregator usage we
can refer to
Very high

Chart

[edit]
GameRankings Metacritic OpenCritic ... MobyGames
Commercial Yes Yes Yes ... Yes
Years active 1999-2019 2001+ 2015+ ... 1999+
Years covered ??? ??? ??? ... Any
Editorial policy ??? No Yes ... ???
Takes user submissions No No Yes ... Yes
Reliable per VGRS Yes Yes ??? ... No
Referenced a lot
by press & developers
Yes Yes ??? ... ???
Complained about a lot
by press & developers
??? Yes ??? ... ???
Owner posts comments on
Wikipedia User pages
No No Yes ... ???
Alexa rank 36,545
(April 23, 2019)
1,362
(April 23, 2019)
48,908
(May 11, 2021)
... 21,854
(April 23, 2019)

Log

[edit]

Discussion #8 was about 1) whether OpenCritic is reliable and 2) whether OpenCritic should be used on Wikipedia. There was consensus on 2) not to use it. However, most discussion on 1) was extremely evasive.

Discussion #6 was about removing GameRankings from the reviews template, and an RfC reached the conclusion that, "There is consensus for the change. The majority opinion is that GR is mainly useful for older games and it is mainly duplication in newer ones. I do not see support for removal everywhere, more of phasing it out on newer games. It was almost clear consensus that it was useful for older games, from both minority and majority opinions. Were that fits on a timeline though isnt clear." Users such as User:Czar denied this, claiming that "The consensus is to use GR only when it's better than nothing." The RfC closer User:AlbinoFerret clarified the issue, telling User:Czar that, "You cant pick and choose what part of a close best suits your position and ignore the rest. Take it as a whole, as the closer takes a look at the entire discussion it isnt based on the question itself for the most part, but the responses."

Discussion #3 was about removing GameRankings from the reviews template, and the consensus after an RfC was to keep it.

Discussion #2 was about removing all aggregators except Metacritic and GameRankings from the reviews template. Consensus was to go ahead and do so.

In Discussion #6 User:Czar made the claim that, "GR also uses far more unreliable sites, on the whole—having more reviews does not mean the metareview is more complete." He provided no backing evidence. However, here is one possible example:

Fallout 2 reviews (GameRankings)
Source Reliability per VGRS
HonestGamers situational
AceGamez unreliable
PC Zone UK US version is considered reliable
Quandary unreliable
Electric Playground reliable
GamePro reliable
GameSpot reliable
Just RPG unreliable
PC Gamer reliable
PC Gameplay reliable
Game Blitz * not counted toward score
AllRPG unreliable
RPGFan reliable
PC Gamer UK reliable
Next Generation reliable
PC Accelerator no discussion
GameSpot UK (Pre-2003) reliable
AntKids.com unreliable
ESC Magazine no discussion
Hyperactive no discussion
Game Over Online no discussion
Game Revolution reliable
Game Power no consensus
Computer Games Mag no discussion
Games First! unreliable
Gamecenter no discussion
IGN reliable

Number of sources: 27
Reliable: 12 (44.4%)
Unreliable: 6 (22.2%)
Other: 9 (40.9%)

Fallout 2 reviews (Metacritic)
Source Reliability per VGRS
Yahoo! Games no consensus
GamePro reliable
Game Over Online no discussion
Quandary unreliable
Electric Playground reliable
All Game Guide reliable
IGN reliable
Gamezilla! reliable
PC Gamer reliable
GameSpot reliable
Game Revolution reliable
Computer Games Magazine reliable
Pregaming unreliable
Happy Puppy unreliable
Adrenaline Vault unreliable

Number of sources: 15
Reliable: 9 (60%)
Unreliable: 4 (26.6%)
Other: 2 (13.3%)