Talk:Depression Quest/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Low importance video game articles"

It would seem to me like this game's article should be more prominent. There is a lot of buzz going around from journalists, critics and gamers regarding Zoe Quinn and this game. Looking at her article, it seems like this is currently being ignored. I'm not sure of the reason why, however relating to just the game itself I have decided to add reception information (from actual sources and not some string of text added by a 4chan troll) and will do so as more critical reviews from notable sources develop.

Swim Jonse (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do expand the article - anything you do to that end will be greatly appreciated. You shouldn't take the importance grade to mean too much, though. That grade is answering the question, "In relation to the subject of video games as a whole, for all time, ever, how much significance does this particular article have?" Even Braid is only Mid-importance. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess the "importance" thing seems odd juxtaposed with what has been going on. Purported hacking, doxing, harassment, lies (from many parties) - all central around this game and its creator, and it grows more viral each day. It's in a state where I would not know how to cover it appropriately and fairly, and a state where certain sources definitely have enough notability to be mentioned and others do not. As such, I have not touched the Zoe Quinn article or anything surrounding the current questions being brought up. I do feel that since this game is coming up often, it is important that information is provided. I would also add images (after obtaining the necessary rights to use them, of course), but this is something I have had no experience doing on Wikipedia. Finally, I'm aware that reception needs to be sourced and was hoping someone would manually supply the reference links because that's also not something I am good at here, with my many years of using the site being mainly correcting grammatical/spelling errors, expanding already cited information and rewording things or removing them if they're too poorly worded to contribute to the article. I'll get to doing that now.

Swim Jonse (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I've for a long time felt that there's a strong and pervasive trend of importance-deflation in this project. Personally I got in some disputes on the subject a few months ago, namely that Sonic Adventure should be High- instead of Mid-importance, but that was within our own guidelines - our guidelines, on a wider level, don't allow anything other than the absolute most important genres, companies, and industry terms to be top-importance. Even things like Mario, Tetris, and Pokémon (video game series) are destined to languish at High despite their immense significance and recognizability. When someone as frequently talked-about and (as much as it might hurt to admit) influential as Phil Fish is only Low-importance, we know there's a problem. Tezero (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I would concur that that Fish not being at least Mid-importance is a problem, with Fez' importance independent of him being a jackass (which as far as I can tell has helped contribute to his importance). At the same time, I don't know if Sonic Adventure (the title specifically, not the franchise, which would seem very obviously High-importance to me) is above a Mid-importance category as well. With this thing, that position does not need to be changed at all right now. I was more bringing it into question than anything else, because everything that's happening now with this is an ongoing thing and at some point depending on what continues to happen it may warrant Mid-importance. Swim Jonse (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That brings up an issue called WP:RECENTISM. I think in this case this is likely to demonstrate what the project would consider to be Mid-importance, but we don't really know because news at any given time covers everything, not just what will go on to accumulate lasting significance. And it's worse because there's no specific timeframe after which we can say, okay, this does or doesn't warrant a Mid-importance rating. I suppose, though, that that would come once the initial news has died down and then an article is still written on it once in a while. This is just an unfortunate fact of journalism.

For the record, I wanted Sonic Adventure to be High because it was probably the first sixth-gen platformer, very advanced in graphics and such for the time (granted, lots of time has passed and Sega has put forth no effort to keep it at all current in later ports), and one of the first console games to use online. I can't decide if I still think this is enough for High, but in most other projects it easily would be. Yes, I like Sonic personally (the series is High already), but in this case I feel it might objectively meet the criteria as much as some other games that already carry that rating. Tezero (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should bring it up to the relevant Wikiproject, after all, it's their banner. Tutelary (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

More prominent? Please. Let's be honest here, Depression Quest is just another typical text-based game. It's importance is easily comparable to the thousands of flash games already found on the internet. The game is definitely notable due to all the hype it's receiving around Zoe Quinn. But, as a game itself, I can't see a way in which it is objectively remarkable. MichaelWoloszyn (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User reviews on Metacritic

I've removed these, as it's obvious that the overwhelming negativity doesn't reflect actual sincere reviews from people who have played the game, but aggrieved gamerbros jumping on the current bandwagon. If we're not going to mention the shitstorm - which seems wise - then we shouldn't cite the "reviews" as if they're meaningful. TiC ^(talk) 16:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm generally not in favor of including average user scores on Wikipedia articles, not because I think professional reviewers are immune to immature trends, but because they're so unstable and people could deliberately spam the review column to influence what Wikipedia would have to say. I think it's okay to include a neutral link to the user reviews and let readers draw their own conclusions, though - I prefer erring on the side of more information. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic scores are very common throughout many dozens or hundreds of video game articles, it just seems weird to include it in countless others but leave it out here. Readers know the difference between consumer aggregate opinion and 'professional' review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.210 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

The difference is that the opinion of users is non-notable. We may as well record what people say in forums or Steam comments. We use Metacritic when it reflects what reviewers said in notable, reliable sources. As the Depression Quest metacritic page doesn't include any of those, it isn't appropriate to use it at this time. Euchrid (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Any citation for your claims that opinions of users on metacritic are non-notable? Or that the metacritic page is anything like Steam comments? Or that Metacritic is only to be used on wikipedia when it reflects what notable (this is subjective) reviews said? Anything at all other than "I have said so"? It's simple: Metacritic is on every other Video Game article. I see absolutely no reason not to include it here other than censorship. Someone should add it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.195.74.161 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

How exactly is it fair to cherrypick the positive reviews for the game and ignore the countless negative Metacritic and Steam reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.253.54.30 (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Take a look at our guidelines for notability and and reliable sources. We generally don't accept self-published material, or material that anybody can contribute to, such as other Wikis, and (in my opinion) the Metacritic user reviews fall into this category. Reliable sources are ones which have (at the bare minimum) passed through an editor. As far as your accusation of cherry picking, I'd also remind you that it's Wikipedia policy to assume good faith in other editors. Euchrid (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the notability guidelines aren't relevant here. They only affect the decision about whether we should have an article on something, not what that article should contain. The reliable sources guideline is the important one here. We usually link to Metacritic because they link to many more professional reviews than we can put in an article (see WikiProject Video games's guideline). However, Depression Quest doesn't yet have any professional reviews, so it isn't useful to include for it from this perspective. And worse, the negative player reviews are a pretty transparent continuation of the harassment that Zoe Quinn has been receiving recently. The biographies of living persons policy is clear that we shouldn't let Wikipedia contribute to the harassment of living people, inadvertently or otherwise. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Stradivarius, I get a bit policy-happy sometimes. Euchrid (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, any insults, valid or otherwise, in reviews don't invalidate those reviews. Rather, the ad-hominem approach is the appropriate one; these reviewers are just random slobs on the Internet whose importance is not acknowledged by outside sources, so we cannot include them. Tezero (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 or 2014?

I don't think it's correct to say this is a 2014 game. It was available, and received coverage on gaming sites during 2013.

Also, I haven't actually played the Steam version. Can anybody inform if there are any differences between the two versions? 80.111.111.181 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you're right: Rock, Paper, Shotgun; GameSpot 1; GameSpot 2. My bad about that.

Unfortunately, I've only played about a minute of the online version and never the Steam version, so I couldn't say. Tezero (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I noticed in ~20 minutes of having played both (it's a very short experience) there are no discernible differences between the game available in 2013 and what just recently landed on steam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.210 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Robin Williams

How was this game released after the death of Robin Williams, if it was released in 2003? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.152.98 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The game was released in 2013. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have typed "2013." However, the question still stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.152.98 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

It was released as a Web app in 2013, then via Steam very recently. That's the one that coincided with Williams's death Euchrid (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The article should be edited to reflect that. As it stands now, it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.152.98 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

I've clarified this in the lede and also in the new "development and release" section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014

I think there should be some mention in the reception section about the excessive negative reviews on steam and meta critic (thanks to the bandwagon effect), but it should be stated they are not necessarily reliable sources for the game's quality. Deku link2 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: We can only include material from reliable sources, and none of the player reviews count. We also need to be extra careful in this case, as the large number of negative reviews are part of the harassment campaign against Quinn. We can't let Wikipedia unwittingly aid in that harassment - see the biographies of living persons policy. The reception section does need expanding, though, so please do feel free to add reviews of the game from reliable sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

While I completely understand your point of view, the inherent nature of this means that reliable sources are few and far between. In fact, people are scared to talk about it. People are even scared to talk about the people talking about it in the fear they'll end up like JonTron. While it's 100% true that there is a bandwagon effect (and I don't care if it's retaliation against a purported affair involved in a scandal, you shouldn't leave a review if you're not leaving one for the game) I do not remotely see how in any way, shape or form linking the Metacritic page and acknowledging the state of it is contributing to harassment. It's not citing a specific review. It's not quoting a statement. It's allowing something to be visible so the reader can visit and make up their own mind regarding what is going on. That's all it is.

I would take a look at this page Company of Heroes 2 and its acknowledgement of the Metacritic user score. The "review bomb". Is this suddenly okay simply because it was reported by Polygon? Swim Jonse (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception modifications

Mr. Stradivarius need not read or reply, we know your answer.

I'm going to leave it in the hands of anyone here to edit this article.

Upon a revision of reception information, this was the statement given for the reason "for obvious reasons, player reviews of this game are not currently trustworthy".

For obvious reasons, this site holds neutrality very highly. Of all places that are going to utterly ignore scandals, I didn't expect that this would be one. It hasn't in the past.

I witnessed a lot of edits. Most of them were not constructive. They did not cite anything, they didn't even add information that needed to be cited. They were generally clusters of vandalism, and that sort of thing should be reverted. In adding reception to the game, I tried my best to be fair. Not including ANY information from what players might have to say, I simply linked to the Metacritic page itself. Not a review from someone in particular, just the page. I'm sure someone will come up with a justification for suppressing speech and at this point seeing what this has evolved into, I don't care - what this tells me ultimately is that even the most minute acknowledgement of the other group being fucked in all of this is wrong "for obvious reasons" - though there's effectively very little information, blatant facts that can be processed without having to assume there's a spin, available other than biased detractors from any given side or perspective involving this.

For years Wikipedia would come under fire for being "biased" as a community for operating the way it's supposed to. That didn't stop this site. This was in a state where the site was run in a far less professional manner, albeit one with (what I can observe) a far greater resolve.

So, I'm done. I took the time to focus on an article because I felt it was important, but I don't want to keep observing it. I want to leave and believe it was handled correctly. In a situation like this Wikipedia is the site to hold fairness to the highest degree, but if that sort of thing means player reviews of a game cannot be even mentioned, that Wiki is seemingly gone. I'll try to trust that the people who continue to edit these pages are fair. Much attention has not been given to the more irate publications, which is certainly just, but knowing now that the situation - the Depression Quest situation, the one that had to do with Zoe Quinn - has been tethered to a completely different situation, there's the risk of walking on a neutrality tightrope here.

So good luck with it all. I'm just sick of hearing seeing nonsense on a daily basis. I'm sicking of watching my friends become assholes so they can argue with people who were already assholes. I'm sick of issues being diluted. I'm sick of, as someone who plays video games and has clinical depression, being now peripherally tied to a group of "sexist", "misogynist" variably prejudiced idiots that you can't identify and having to suffer because of it. I'm sick of a dying industry. I'm sick of anybody being harassed. I'm sick of "journalists" who pick up on a situation when they know nothing about it. I'm about ready to quit playing video games all together because of the repeating pattern of things like this. I have no faith in any of them.

However, because this site represents an idea that was so beautifully dreamt, I have faith in the members of this site, and it'd be a shame to for gamers to lose that faith. Swim Jonse (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Swim Jonse: I know you said that I don't need to reply, but actually I might have something to say that you weren't expecting. Now, we don't usually include player reviews because they are not published in what Wikipedia defines to be reliable sources. However, as far as Wikipedia's verifiability policy goes, the only thing we need to source a sentence saying "player reviews of Depression Quest were almost universally negative" is a mention, in one of the sources Wikipedia deigns to be reliable, that says that the player reviews were almost all negative. It doesn't have to be sourced by the player reviews themselves. (And I think I recall seeing a mention of player reviews in a site covering the controversy - don't remember which, though.) The interesting part comes with the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. Would it be furthering the harassment of Quinn to mention those player reviews, seeing as they were mostly made as part of the harassment campaign against her? I'm not sure, and there is an interesting discussion developing at Talk:Zoe Quinn#harassment? that might inform the content decisions we make here. Do you think we could cover the player reviews in a way that is still compatible with the BLP policy? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's nothing new to me. I know how the policies work. I could have cited something that stated that and it would have been considered not notable enough or potentially biased. The reason I opted simply to mention the Metacritic score (which I saw as being not inherently volatile at all, certainly not at that time, where I could concur with some of the reviews myself suffering from what the game is attempting to portray, certainly not in the way the page was not mentioned in depth) was simply because like everyone else...we really don't know what's going on right now. At this moment. Due to the nature of the "scandal" and its purported cover-up, due to the people involved on each side of this thing - be them people co-opting something they were never a part of, or overgrown children that hide behind a wall of anonymity and throw tantrums, or those who overlap within these groups and simply don't have any position in all of this - I don't see a truly "reliable source" existing. Not at this stage, at least. Not for a while.

I said that I trust people here will do the correct thing - and I do - whether that involves twisting the policies or strictly adhering to them. I wouldn't be able to answer you as to whether or not covering the player reviews adheres to a certain policy. I've just seen enough occasions where policies are seemingly ignored or subverted by consensus in a talk page or without any notice while the article remains relatively high profile and monitored. It's whatever is in the best interest of us all. I certainly don't think Quinn deserves any harassment. Nobody deserves any harassment, period, and that works both ways - this is what is not being acknowledged.

The one thing I do know for sure is that before the harassment began, there were accusations. There were accusations that had some basis behind them. There were accusations that led to very strange activity regarding those who were accused (less about Quinn, more about what this has to do with Kotaku and co.) and now it's being brushed over in the same way this sort of thing has always been brushed over in the last few years. Once upon a time a 4chan poster decided to be a scummy human being, made a "beat up Anita Sarkeesian" game and threw it up on Newgrounds. Now 'gamers' as a whole are horrible, misogynistic human beings, because a small minority of people acted like children. It's an irritating, abhorrent generalization and I don't have the patience to keep up with it anymore. I was editing this when it was about Zoe Quinn, when the current discussion was about her. Now it's not, now it's about the same damn shit we get every three-four months. I feel sorry for everybody, because all of this takes us nowhere, quickly. So if there's one thing to be said, it's this: more people are going to show up (as they have) requesting the Metacritic score is reported. I just want you to ask yourself, truthfully, is that aiding in harassment? Knowing how this site works, knowing that there are certain wikis, certain sites, certain communities very notable to those who play video games that are not even REMOTELY concerned with fairness and are going to try and rip someone like Quinn to shreds, is mentioning the aggregate score on Metacritic truly aiding in harassment? It seems to me like it's just mentioning the Metacritic player score and nothing else, but apparently it's a question everyone needs to stop and think about while editing this article.

I wish you all the best of luck figuring out how to document this well. This is going to boil over really heavily at some point here, and when it does I just want to make sure Wikipedia remains true to its concept. Swim Jonse (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's disgusting that Wikipedia of all places is censoring on this matter, no mention at all of the controversy, it's not harrasment if you point out the facts, which she admitted in part, herself. Mr. Stradivarius has for some reason taken ahold of all that has to do with her. He obviously has a non-NPOV, with so far as to leave out all critics of the game as "trolls" or 4chan raiders. This is the whole point of the scandal! Gaming sites are proven to have ties with her, bringing in a giant conflict of interest. I'm not saying we should witch hunt her, just state that there's a controvery involving her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.59.78.239 (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As has been stated many times, baseless assertions like this are just as unacceptable on Talk pages as they are in actual articles. Euchrid (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If I'm biased about this subject, it's a pro-Wikipedia bias. All I'm trying to do here is to make sure that the biographies of living persons policy is followed. That policy comes down on the side of privacy for living people, and on relying on mainstream sources for verification. Poorly sourced, controversial allegations just aren't allowed on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

SINCE my last comment was censored i am going to rephrase it. All positive reviews are not RS as the journalists had a COI with the developer of this game. Retartist (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a {{citation needed}} kind of comment, I'm afraid. And speculation on forums and comment threads does not constitute credible evidence. Also, please remember that the biographies of living persons policy also applies to talk pages - that's why your previous comment was removed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

I've had a look, and I'm not sure what sources are considered unreliable given the nature of the content. Would it be possible to have a bit more detail about which sources need to be replaced? - Bilby (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources (even more respected than the gaming journalism sites involved in the controversy) talking about the subject

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ In it, it cites there was a censorship controversy in Reddit and "perceived radio silence on the part of the press" which "led to early grumblings of ‘censorship’ among gamers crying foul play". An alleged DMCA takedown on YouTube by people involved in the controversy (don't want to cite names since, as I said it's alleged.

DDOS attacks on sites against their "game jam" (The Fine Young Capitalists) in itself a feminist game jam.

Aside from this we have the AlJazeera source, and now a Slate source all of them more credible since they're not involved in the controversy Please don't let Wikipedia fall into the censorship

I would put this in the Zoe Quinn talk page but it's blocked, anyway the only thing this game is notable for is the controversy surrounding it 200.59.78.239 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, chief, [that's a content farm with zero/minimal editorial oversight,](http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/173743/what-the-forbes-model-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/) the idea that it's "more respected than the gaming journalism sites" is absurd. 99.249.15.40 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes source and GamerGate

@Tezero: About this edit - the Forbes article doesn't say that Depression Quest is "the subject" of GamerGate. The only mention of Depression Quest in the article is the sentence, "She’d been in a dust-up with Wizardchan already, a forum for male virgins, who she claimed in 2013 harassed her over her game Depression Quest." As I said in my edit summary, I'm not opposed to mentioning GamerGate here, but we do need to cite that mention to a source that actually says that they are connected. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The following doesn't mention gamergate by name but does refer to it http://gamesided.com/2014/09/12/zoe-quinn-depression-quest-depressingly-bad/ it's a review done in response to the further publicity Depression Quest recieved due to gamergate. 110.175.58.246 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate and Media self-censorship.

I came to this article because NPR did a story about it today, and I am rather shocked that Gamergate is not mentioned in the main article. Gamergate is the only thing about Depression Quest that is notiable. Gamergate is not about women in gaming. It's not about depression. It is about the Media.

Media outlets that are normally obsessed with scandal are refusing to discuss the real scandal here: That someone was able to garner inappropriately high reviews for a buggy game that fails in it's stated goal of resembling the experience of depression. How can the same media that spends thousands of man hours pouring over Benghazi or Obama's birth certificate be so shockingly uninterested in how these reviews came about?

By following the same suppression, Wikipedia is contributing to the problem it refuses to cover. The line about "please do feel free to add reviews of the game from reliable sources" is particularly ill-advised given that the reliability of those sources is precisely what the protest is about. Algr (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate is covered extensively at Gamergate controversy‎. - Bilby (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Algr: Who says that we are refusing to cover it? All we need to do is to cover it without violating WP:BLP or Wikipedia's sourcing policies. You should have a go at writing a paragraph on it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem adding reliably-sourced information about all of the above, if it is true. Otherwise, your claims are as evidence-free as the Obama birth certificate conspiracy.

BTW, if having a few bugs disqualifies a game, the NBA 2K series would have gone bust 5 years ago. Yet we all keep buying it every year, myself included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article says that Gamergate was trigged by "false" allegations of a relationship between two people. Well I never read anything about Gamergate--I just vaguely heard that it was very contentious--but I come to Wikipedia expecting that I can get an uncompromised set of facts about it. Allegations about the timeline of bedroom activities can't be "false allegations" in an encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure that isn't a publicly available fact. But right, it's contentious, and there's no such thing as objectivity in contentious matters any longer. 2607:FEA8:84A0:E740:B193:EB8:A53F:E606 (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Gameplay

I removed the sentence "It can be completed in a few hours." - while the reviewer cited says "I finished the game in a few hours." we should avoid being misleading, I have played the game and it took 15 minutes. tops. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

Alright, it's good now

I abandoned expanding upon this before "GamerGate" was even a thing and when any mention of the negative reception was being removed. It's totally true that people from 4chan, Reddit, etc. have vandalized the Metacritic score because of the controversy (while some have given the "game" a fair chance and just have disliked it). In fact, most of them that do that sort of thing are detrimental to the cause. However, it's perfectly stated at the end there. Seeing that this was a major event leading to the "GamerGate" thing, the article should retain that bit about player scores - Metacritic, Steam or otherwise.

Swim Jonse (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Dot

I could give a rat's ass about the gamergate controversy...but since when has The Daily Dot been an acceptable and reputable/reliable source? They're a known internet-rumour mill, they have little in the way to establish their line of credibility, and aside from one vague conversation on a noticeboard between users who had reservations about TDD, I can't find anyone else (aside from a user edit-warring with me) who supports them as a source.

What's next, do we use Buzzfeed and Cracked? Solntsa90 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As per this discussion, The Daily Dot is, at the very least, a baseline acceptable reliable source. There do not appear to be any sources disputing the fact that an organized campaign bombarded Depression Quest's review scores out of spite, nor are there sources suggesting that The Daily Dot's reporting here is wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussions on noticeboards that get ignored by the majority of users suddenly make WIKI:RS invalid? Who'd a thought! Solntsa90 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. The reliable sources noticeboard is specifically set up for community discussions and consensus to be formed around whether or not a source is reliable. Your repeated argument-by-declaration that The Daily Dot is not usable is rebutted by the earlier consensus which specifically determined that it's usable. If you wish to change this consensus, the noticeboard is right over there --> NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are no sources suggesting the Daily Dot's reporting is wrong, why not find another source that isn't the Daily Dot that is credible that makes the exact same claim? Solntsa90 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Given prior discussions by the community, the burden of proof lies upon you to demonstrate that The Daily Dot is not credible in this particular instance. So far, you've produced nothing but stale declarations. That's why I've repeatedly suggested that you open a discussion at RSN. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Depression Quest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I played this... I'll have the review complete within 24 hours. JAGUAR  17:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• The lead needs to be expanded in order to summarise the article and comply per WP:LEAD. Typically of an article this size it should be at least two paragraphs long and should contain much more on development and reception
• "first released for the web on February 14, 2013.[1][2][3]" - per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lead are discouraged unless it's citing controversial information. I realise that the Gamergate controversy citation should be kept, but the citations for the release date should be moved to the infobox
  •  Done sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• I'd recommend splitting the Gameplay section into two paragraphs and merging the short sentence ("the game has 40,000 words of text") into one of the paragraphs, to improve flow of the prose
  •  Done sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• No aggregate scores for Reception?
  • No, not enough reviews. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• "and expressed optimism in its potential to educate people about the disease" - am I reading this right? Did she just say that depression is a disease?!
  •  Fixed sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links

On hold

A short and compact article with some structure issues, I think an expansion of the lead and some re-organisation of a few sections is required. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, good luck JAGUAR  17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Please note that this is a drive-by nomination (I had no prior edits to the article), and I may not be able to access the internet from tomorrow to August 5. I may not be able to answer any questions during that time, which means the review may need to be placed on hold for a longer time. I never expected a review so soon. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I saw it in the GAN queue and thought I'd review it, even I never expected to finish it so soon. If you like, I can leave it on hold for when you come back or either one of us could request that someone else take handle the comments in your absence, it's up to you? Either way I'm happy to leave it on hold for whatever is best for you. JAGUAR  17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by others

The article currently doesn't cover how conspiracy theories about the game started the Gamergate controversy (See Gamergate controversy#History). These events should be integrated into the article. I'd add them, but I don't want to make too many big independent changes to an article while someone else is trying to get in through GAR.Brustopher (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that my initial comments are far too short, but with the being said, I usually tend to focus on prose and organisational issues at first. Yeah, a little more regarding the Gamergate controversy would be needed in this article I think. JAGUAR  20:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for this, but @Jaguar: you may as well fail the article for now. The article still needs expanding, but I am not very familiar with GamerGate, so other users would do a better job than me. Article is also not very stable. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be willing to try and get the article to GA status, if Jaguar doesn't think the situation is completely hopeless. I don't think there's that much more major work left to do. Also I'd disagree that the article isn't stable, there hasn't really been a content dispute centered on this page for almost a year now, most of the reverts and edit warring is with drive by IP editors and BLP vandals. Brustopher (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to leave this on hold. I agree that the situation isn't hopeless and nothing particularly major needs to be added here. I think a bit on the GamerGate controversy and how this game got involved in the ordeal would be required seeing as this game received a lot of publicity. The page is already semi-protected, so don't worry about vandal IPs. If you get stuck on what to add about GamerGate, there's plenty of news coverage out there - or if it's irrelevant, some people at WT:VG would definitely be more well-versed in the controversy that I am. JAGUAR  22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar I've expanded the lede, and added more on Quinn's harassment and Gamergate. Brustopher (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Sorry for leaving this so long. I've had another look at the article and it should now satisfy the comprehensiveness part of the criteria. Other than that, the references are all reliable, correctly formatted and used properly within the context. The stuff about GamerGate should be fine too, but at the end of the day they are two different things. Anyway, I'll be promoting this now. If anyone has any concerns they are free to take it to the talk page. JAGUAR  14:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Weblink

Can this link be added please: "Depression Quest - the game for free" --84.147.34.246 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The official site is already linked at the bottom of the page. Did you want it linked somewhere else as well? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Humour

I once put a joke about an church that was demolished in 1524 in a Wikipedia article. Sadly it was removed a few months later, and I have resisted all mainspace humour temptation ever since (also possibly sadly). However it was with difficulty that I avoided changing the last sentence of the Development and release section to the following:

Part of the proceeds from the game are sent to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline,, or possibly to iFred but certainly to some charity or other.

Perhaps article regulars can have a little chuckle, then resolve the substantive point? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: - Trying to decide whether this "joke" is really, really subtle, or just not funny. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess if I have to explain the joke it isn't funny. If it's not funny it isn't a joke. And if it's not a joke it can go in the article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: - I'm sure there's some humor in there somewhere. Darned if I can figure out where though.... NickCT (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's that the message that some money went to charity is more important than which charity, or even the fact that it went to charity. Possibly it's sharpened if you know that some people have doubted that any money did go to charity and asked to see a receipt - which was declined on the grounds that it would be self doxxing. And (which I only realised after the original post) that the Fine Young Capitalists wrote to Zoe Quinn saying that they had changed their support from one of these charities to the other. (In layman's terms ZQ and TFYC are enemies.)

I changed the wording of the sentence to remove the self-satire and added it to the article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

Typo

I found a typo: In mid-August 2015, soon after the game's official Steam release, a former boyfriend of Quinn wrote a lengthy and negative blogpost about their relationship. This should be In mid-August 2014. 107.184.88.103 (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the fix! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Robin Williams WP:SYNTH

I've twice removed this material from the article. The material is WP:SYNTH as the source has nothing to do with Depression Quest, though the way it's presented implies conclusions about the game. The burden of evidence is on the editor introducing challenged material to defend it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The release date was widely covered and Robin Williams suicide was discussed as affecting it. Robin Williams death being a factor in Quinn's decision was predicated on a widely reported but false portrayal of Williams state of mind and it ceased being SYNTH when Quinn mentioned it as major factor in her decision. The underlying presumption was incorrect and correcting it is not SYNTH. Leaving it uncorrected does a disservice to Williams legacy and wife that have specifically refuted depression as a cause. Please stop removing sourced and relevant information. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong on several levels. For one thing, the article text here doesn't specify or imply that Williams' suspected suicide was due to depression. It only states (accurately) that Quinn weighed the timing of the news against the release. The most any of it could be seen as suggesting is that Quinn thought there was a link to depression, which would hardly be unreasonable considering what was reported at the time, but again the article doesn't say it. Second, your statement that Williams' "suicide was unrelated to depression" is false. In fuller accounts, Susan Williams is says that he was indeed suffering from depression and was taking antidepressants, but said it "was a small piece of the pie of what was going on".[1] There's no benefit to adding this material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Read more about Quinn's decision making [2]. It's relevant in that her own rhetorical questions were needlessly agonizing as being irrelevant particularlyher questions about "how someone with so much could kill themselves" was made in the context of williams suicide and is ultimately unrelated to the game despite Quinn's presumption that it was very relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the material you removed was an example of WP:SYNTH- it didn't mention Depression Quest at all. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a cut-and-dried case. WP:SYNTH says nothing about sources having to mention the subject of an article they are used in. Instead, it says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I would say that the first version of the material, "Robin Williams' suicide was unrelated to depression", probably is SYNTH, as it implies that the causes of Williams' suicide were known at the time, that Quinn was unaware of them, and that she assumed that it was due to depression. I would also say that my later version, "It later transpired that Robin Williams' suicide was unrelated to depression", is not SYNTH, as it makes it clear that the causes of Williams' suicide were made known after Quinn made her decision. I do agree with MarkBernstein's edit though - while the ABC news story emphasised that the suicide was unrelated to depression, the other news stories that I have seen mentioned that it could have been a factor, albeit not nearly as big as was previously thought. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is, in the nature of things, unanswerable. Neither you nor I nor ABC are Mr. Williams' psychiatrist, and though she might have a professional opinion, she wouldn't know, either. If Quinn had been thinking in her account of Virginia Wolfe or Ophelia, would the question change at all? Was Ophelia depressed? MarkBernstein (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, there's no point in reading "about Quinn's decision making" if it's not covered in this article. Your addition counters a claim that the paragraph never raises. And of course that's beside the issue that your wording was incorrect.

Mr. Stradivarius - yes, that's a good point, but even the corrected wording is unconnected to any claim in the preceding text. Again, the article doesn't say that Quinn thought William's death was linked to depression. Fixing the issue would require both fixing the new addition (ie, adding a better source than originally supplied and revising the wording stating that his death was "unrelated" to depression), and altering the preceding text to make it clear that Quinn did think there was a link.

We could alter the wording to say that "She considered delaying the Steam release after hearing the news, as she did not want to be seen as taking advantage of Williams's death, which at the time was reported to be linked to the actor's depression." It seems doing that would negate whatever usefulness the addition would have, as the nuances of the situation leading up to Williams' death are better covered elsewhere.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed another problem with this material: one of the sources is a Forbes.com contributor blog.[3] Forbes blogs are self-published sources with no editorial oversight.[4] Such sources are inappropriate for any BLP material, so I'll be removing it throughout the article. The other given source for that section is from Game Politics.[5] The reliability of this site has been discussed several times but there has never been a clear consensus that it's generally reliable per WP:VG/RS. It seems to be a much better site than Forbes, so I'll leave it there for now, but it does bear further discussion. I'll try to rewrite the material with better sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Polygon article [6] goes into more depth of what Quinn considered. If our article is too shallow in coverage, it should expand as it's clear that Quinn used the belief that Williams' suicide was from depression. we cannot claim "the Earth is round" is synthesized because our article didn't probe enough to actually cite the spherical nature of our planet. Quinn specifically considered people thinking how someone with so much as Williams could be depressed. We now know she overthought it and the the connection to depression was unfounded. That information is just as relevant as the paragraph on handwringing. These are reported facts, not synth. What would be synth is to attach malevolent or benevolent motives behind such machinations without attribution. Williams didn't mention Depression Quest in his suicide note but its relevance and connection to depression and DQ was established by Quinn through her statements. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Polygon article doesn't say anything like what you're describing. In fact, what it does say is that "she turned to that audience through social media to help consider the difficult decision of publishing the same day as the announcement of Robin Williams' suicide. The prolific actor was not only an avid gamer, but someone who publicly struggled with depression throughout his life." Neither that nor the quote from her about it says or implies that she thought Williams' suicide was the result of depression. The closest statement I can find is Quinn's own statement on her blog that "beloved actor Robin Williams was found dead from a suspected suicide after a long struggle with depression". Even this isn't really untrue as you're trying to imply.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

From Polygon - quote from Quinn However, I would rather have those people hate me than the people who are currently quietly suffering with this illness sit at their dinner tables tonight and hear the discussion of today's news, hear people not understand how someone who had so much could kill themselves, and lack a resource they could have needed right then to point to and say ‘this is why.'" Her directly quoted statement is offering "Depression Quest" as providing the answer to William's suicide. The fact that it wasn't depression is relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to the article and it's not going to improve the readers understanding of the subject, or about the decision to continue with the release. — Strongjam (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it provides the reader with much needed factual evidence that DQ is not a clinical tool to be used to understand suicide or even depression. We leave the reader with the impression that game content is relevant to an historical event. That's false and misleading. Quinn isn't a doctor so we don't need to delve into how her conclusions were wrong but it's a mistake to leave it uncorrected with the impression that DQ and Robin Williams death are related in any clinical fashion or that clinical reasoning was a sound basis for any decisions regarding its release. I don't doubt Quinn believed it at the time, but that doesn't mean the reader should continue to be as misinformed as she was. --DHeyward (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The article gives no impression of a 'clinical reasoning'. Just that she thought about moving the release date because of the reports about Williams death, but decided against that. I think you're reading a bit too much into things here. — Strongjam (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's an understatement. Regardless of how one parses that or any other quote, we've already demonstrated that the claim that Williams' suicide was "was unrelated to depression" is false.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there are any sources that relate his suicide to depression. There are sources that discuss depression that he had and was being treated for and they also discuss drug and alcohol abuse. Drugs and alcohol weren't a factor in his suicide, either, though. Sources connected with the Williams family tell TMZ ... Lewy Body Dementia was the "key factor" they believe drove him to kill himself. We're told Robin's doctors agree that the disease was the critical factor leading to his suicide. [7]. This has been known since the autopsy results last November. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're just digging your heels in. The wording that Williams' "suicide was unrelated to depression" is false for the reasons explained, and much more misleading than the current text of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in like this, but I can't help but notice you ignored how DHeyward provided a clear example of his position (Sources connected with the Williams family tell TMZ ... Lewy Body Dementia was the "key factor" they believe drove him to kill himself. We're told Robin's doctors agree that the disease was the critical factor leading to his suicide. [8]). In your rebuttal you haven't even acknowledged this point, and instead just repeated yourself. DHeyward provided evidence to his case. How is this still debatable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethyre (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Sethyre I already rebutted that point above. To repeat myself yet again, in the fuller account I already linked to[9], Susan Williams is clear that while it was a "small piece of the pie", Williams was indeed suffering from depression at the time. The purpose of DHeyward's addition was to imply that Quinn was wrong, but she wasn't. And that's beside the WP:SYNTH violation and the fact that the article never got into whether Quinn thought Williams' death was connected to depression in the first place, meaning it counters a point the article never made. It was a misleading claim poorly stated, and it's clear there's no consensus for adding it to the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It’s not that Williams was the inspiration for Depression Quest or that he led her to create the game; his unexpected death may have had some impact on the timing of the work’s release. Whether the artist choose to unveil the painting on Tuesday or Wednesday, it’s still the same painting, and interesting stories about its release are secondary at best. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

From the sources, the only person that links DQ to Williams suicide is Quinn. I haven't seen any third parties mentioning it at all in reliable sources. If Williams death is related to DQ, and by Quinn's account it is as she mentions it, certainly explaining how it's related is also relevant. Quinn says DQ is a resource in understanding Williams suicide. Background information on Williams suicide isn't just an interesting story, it's relevant to the entire construct of "game as a resource." That theme is broadly covered but Williams suicide and Quinn's personal experiences are the only cases Quinn discussed with detail. How is a source with more details regarding Williams not relevant? There's no indication that Quinn knew Williams so this isn't knowledge only held by Quinn. If Quinn had not mentioned Williams, it would not be in the article, so it's not random and it's not a third party association of DQ and Williams - it's the author herself that has made the connection. For the painting analogy, there are many interesting stories regarding da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," and certainly some of the anecdotal ones of speculation by third parties are not relevant (i.e. my own personal disappointment/surprise when first viewing it in the Louvre is not mentioned in the article, though it is not a unique reaction) - but most assuredly the stories da Vinci personally told and originated are notable and relevant. Background information regarding Lisa del Giocondo from other sources are indeed very relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Williams was not the muse for DQ. The game had already been released (Feb 14, 2013) prior to his death (Aug 11, 2014). Quinn only considered delaying it's release on Steam (Aug 12, 2014). — Strongjam (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that we're not discussing Da Vinci’s stories of painting the Mona Lisa, but rather his worrying it that showing it to Giacomo on Wednesday night might be in poor taste because Giacomo’s daughter has been ill, and that it might possibly be better to leave it home and wait a week or two. Product releases and publicity scheduling always have bumps and intangibles; I don’t see reason to think this was significant to the work’s conception and execution. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

We now how three sources that discuss the Robin Williams connection. None of them get into the issue that DHeyward wants to introduce here (and, again, his claim has been shown to be false). It's obvious there's no consensus for this addition and we're just going around in circles. It's time to either seek dispute resolution or move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

re:MarkBernstein - Quite the opposite. We have the author of a product making a statement that random release date is now greatly more significant because it helps people explain something that happened on that date. The author is the only person that links the date, the product and the event. No one else has expressed any thought on the matter. Later it's determined that there is no link. Had it just been worrying about poor taste, that would be one thing. But that's not what Quinn said. She made a claim that the game enhances understanding of this unrelated event so it was important (to who?) to release it and comment on Williams suicide. I'm sure there were many product launches on that date. If it were a pharmaceutical company introducing a new anti-depressant drug scheduled for that date months in advance, and, on the day of release they made an impromptu press release about Williams tragic death and how important their new drug would be in helping people like Williams so they were going to keep to their schedule - wouldn't it be relevant if their new drug was completely unrelated to Williams suicide? We don't draw conclusions but we should provide relevant background information when claims are made. --DHeyward (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And again, the article doesn't get into whether Quinn thought Williams' suicide was the result of depression, as it's not really significant, so the point is moot.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

quote from Quinn directly discussing how Williams' could kill themselves and how DQ is a resource for understanding his actions However, I would rather have those people hate me than the people who are currently quietly suffering with this illness sit at their dinner tables tonight and hear the discussion of today's news, hear people not understand how someone who had so much could kill themselves, and lack a resource they could have needed right then to point to and say ‘this is why.'" If our article doesn't show her appraisal of the game's value, then it's lacking and should be updated to reflect her reasoning. Also, if you believe depression contributed to Williams' suicide, you should offer that to our Robin Williams article and correct his wife, his doctors and the WP editors that wrote it did not. --DHeyward (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That quote isn't in the article. There is nothing to correct or clarify here. — Strongjam (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"False allegations"

How come the page is saying that the allegations are definitely false? As far as I can recall there has been no definitive proof that the allegations were either correct or incorrect, so surely saying the allegations were false breaches Wikipedia's belief in neutrality? (And no, I'm not a Gamergater/anti-Gamergater. Both sides are acting like idiots to be honest.) Personally I think it would be best if the "false" was yanked out of that sentence. Please inform me if I'm incorrect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.7.72 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2016‎ (UTC)

The cited source in the body of the calls them "false accusations". The policies on neutrality require us to reflect what our sources say. — Strongjam (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Would these policies also require the inclusion of an additional source/citation into the last sentence of the introduction of the article that details the allegations which are said to be false? Because claiming that an allegation is false makes very little sense if the source that makes the allegation is not cited. Washuchan73 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia is not a gossip site. We don't give accusers equal time simply because their accusations have been debunked. In some cases, we may detail accusations if they have been reported in reliable, third-party published sources. But we rarely repeat accusations from primary sources, and never when it comes to living persons. Woodroar (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a better explanation is needed here. The explanation that Wikipedia policy "require us to reflect what our sources say" doesn't actually address the question. One can easily cherry-pick a source and quote it to one's own end, especially when there's a controversy. If for example the topic were clades and where a specific species fell, one source may give one family, another may believe a whole new family exists. It is not Wikipedia's policy to declare fact a single assessment. Certainly "reflecting" what a source states is necessary but that is not what this article does. This article makes a conclusive declaration that the accusations are false. It does not state that a particular source declares it, this article declares it. There is no neutrality. It's presented as fact. A controversy, one so great it changed Wikipedia policy, is being declared concluded becsuse of the opinion of one source. "We don't give accusers equal time simply because their accusations have been debunked." No debunking has occurred. and again, no accusers are being given any time at all. This article has taken a side in a controversy with no evidence to support the side, only a link to an opinion.

"we may detail accusations if they have been reported in reliable, third-party published sources. But we rarely repeat accusations from primary sources, and never when it comes to living persons."

The accusations of fixed reviews for this game have been reported in numerous articles in numerous reliable third party sources. Nobody is asking that first party accusations be quoted, but you've essentially done that by quoting a first party accusation that the accusations are false and presented it as a conclusive fact. In any other topic or controversy on any other page this would be clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy. What if for example a single source declares the accusations against Harvey Weinstein are false, it would be absurd for Wikipedia's article on the subject to cite that one source and then declare as fact on its page that the accusations are false. But one can take your argument and make that exact justification. Wikipedia policies "require us to reflect what our sources say." Well then I guess you need to change Weinstein's page. You have cherry picked an article, then stated its argument as fact in this article, then defended this article's bias as justified based on Wikipedia policy. If this is correct, then one need only find any source claiming the innocence of anyone in any scandal and may declare the accusations false on Wikipedia.J1DW (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Which reliable sources have reported these "fixed reviews"? Please bring them here so we can discuss them.

To your other point about "false allegations": this article cites 2 direct references for that claim and the Gamergate controversy article cites 4 direct references. But there are dozens, if not hundreds that address this specific aspect of the controversy to some degree. It is the near-unanimous—if not outright unanimous—conclusion of reliable sources that these allegations were false. Our requirements for referencing reliable sources have been met. There is no requirement to include every source, especially when they all agree. Woodroar (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Endings?

I count at least 6 endings (and that's just for the scenarios that match how I might actually react to the hypotheticals). Did I count wrong? 108.18.139.209 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)