Talk:Linus Media Group

Redirect needs to be removed

The Linus Sebastian page makes no sense, because the introduction is about him and the rest of the article is about Linus Media Group, which at this point really needs it's own article. It needs to be separated, and Linus Media Group can't be created because of this redirect. Shane04040404 (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

alright problem solved Shane04040404 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

Inside the List of YouTube channels chart, GameLinked needs to be added. URL: https://www.youtube.com/@GameLinked Currently has 33.2K subscribers with 0 videos. Riley is the manager and has not made a video yet. Creation date: Jul 22, 2022.

Talked about on the WAN Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSOF8RFrihM&t=7583s TheMonDon (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Until it has videos, there's no point adding it to the table. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 02:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: per Evelyn Marie's objection. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"it's the date that the channel was created."

@Skipple: The revision you made directly contradicts with the message of the revision. Though you call it clear, explaining that "it's the date the channel was created", per YouTube the channel was created 22 July 2022. You instead put the launch date (today, 29 June 2023). This suggests to me that it is, in fact, not clear. If one thing is clear to me, it's that 29 June 2023 was not the day the channel was made, and your edit made the data factually inaccurate. I have reverted it. Please do not take any further action until we resolve this on the talk page. violetwtf (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Whoop, you are completely correct. I removed the wrong date than intended. My suggestion is to have only July 22, 2022 as the "creation date". - Skipple ☎ 18:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Skipple: I think this is important context that should be in the article. We have a similar entry for They're Just Movies' end date, and I feel it's misleading to *only* have the channel creation date. An alternative is to create a "Launched Date" column to the table, but as with They're Just Movies, if it only applies to one channel I'd rather not. A creation date a whole year prior to when the channel was actively in use just feels like a discrepancy that should be addressed. We are an encyclopedia, and in the one section where we expand on GameLinked, it feels like pretty important info to leave out. If you see it differently though please elaborate. Thank you. violetwtf (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm personally against having the *ended* field there as well. To your point, I do believe this information should be included as it is encyclopedic, however, it's more appropriate within the body of the article for additional context. Adding additional information within tables in the manner clutters the view. If we must include this information within the table, I suggest making additional columns 'First Video' and 'Last Video' as this is more descriptive of what the date is actually referring to. - Skipple ☎ 18:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Skipple: I don't like the idea of a last video column, since either it's only there for TJM, or the column should be called "Latest Video," which still does not provide enough context for TJM and also requires Wikipedians to update it daily with information that can often be inferred. I am however more than willing to meet you in the middle -- I think a "First Video" column is an awesome information point that I'd be glad to include for every channel. If you're OK with this compromise, let me know how you'd like to see this column, personally I am thinking:

---

How Not To Fix Things (is it taboo/bad practice to include links here?)

Uploaded July 29, 2023

---

Let me know what you think. violetwtf (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Rather than created/launched/end date, maybe it would be best for infocard metrics from TV shows to be employed in some fashion for streamed media channels. Such as release date, number of seasons (where applicable), number of episodes, etc. Or some variant thereof. Just my $.06 Picard's Facepalm (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think LTT/TechQuickie/etc content really fits with a season or even episodic model -- especially because the main channel and Channel Super Fun at least house many different "series." violetwtf (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

While I await a conclusion I've at least made the styling consistent with the TJM end date so it looks less tacky. violetwtf (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't need daily viewership updates of the channels

That kind of editing is excessive and unnecessary - even for new channels. Monthly is more than enough (and even that is in question). WP is not for real-time updates, and these are stats that can be easily obtained by going to the channel(s) themselves. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll bite. What issue does frequent updating cause? Why not? And how are you going to control/enforce this? - Skipple ☎ 17:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Who said anything about control and enforcement? I made a simple and accurate statement - daily hit-tracking of a YT channel is excessive and unnecessary. Aside from the daily scrolling the edit history- it doesn't cause an issue per-se. But it also holds no encyclopedic value. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As of August 5th, 2023, I have done the monthly update. So a monthly update is a good solution because it does actually feel like almost a waste of time such as calculating the numbers (Views and Subscribers) back and forth. It's my opinion, so it's not enforced. But I am saying that a monthly update is nice. Resolvelution Tension (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Can someone able to update the Notable YouTube Channels' list?

I want to have someone to check up the list to be updated as of August 5th, 2023 for subscribers and views. You can see the history of the 'Linus Sebastian' article and see the numbers of updated information. Thank you. Resolvelution Tension (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No criticism section?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGW3TPytTjc Polygnotus (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If there are third party reliable sources that cover this topic, feel free to add one. - Skipple ☎ 03:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skipple: Gamers Nexus is a reliable source. And videos on YouTube can be used as sources. The video was published 9 hours ago so I think 3rd party sources will take longer than that. Polygnotus (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Gamers Nexus isn't a reliable source, nor am I denying that YouTube videos can be used as sources. I'm not sure where I said that. However, the video linked is more of an opinion piece than a journalistic one, with Gamers Nexus taking issue with Linus Media Group's ethics. Saying "one YouTuber criticizes another" is hardly enough for a criticism section on Wikipedia. I agree: not enough time has passed. This is also why my suggestion is to wait to see if any independent reliable sources pick up the story. That will indicate to us whether or not the story has enough legs to warrant calling it criticism. - Skipple ☎ 03:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skipple: Billet Labs made a claim. Gamers Nexus reported on this claim. GN is a reliable, independent, 3rd party source. And you reverted that edit with the editsummary: "First party citation does not reflect statement in article. Recommend waiting for a 3rd party reliable source before adding in.". What do you mean? Polygnotus (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I failed to see the YouTube link in the citation. I submit on second review, my edit summary is inaccurate, but I stand by my edit with the explanation above. (also, just an FYI - no need to tag me if you are replying, I will get notified regardless) - Skipple ☎ 03:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hah, your edit summary confused me quite a bit there. Well, this is not a newspaper so I am fine with waiting a day or two. I do think the "opinion" (or whatever you wanna call it) of reliable sources on (for example) the ethics of (and veracity of claims made by) notable people and companies can be worth including. For example; the SPLC and ADL's opinion on the Proud Boys is mentioned in the article. And we have articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump The opinion of someone who is an expert on the topic is not really comparable to an opinion column in my local news paper for example. ;-) Polygnotus (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed you made this edit. Gamers Nexus is the reliable 3rd party source. So I am not sure I understand your edit summary. Polygnotus (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a side note the talk page discussion regarding the water block & GN is happening here on Linus Media Group, however - the edits being discussed happened over on Linus Sebastian. If/when there are additional sources, content and context - I would say the content should be added here to LMG, and not to Linus' article. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. The article about Linus is about Linus. Polygnotus (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Gamer's Nexus is a self-published source for the purposes of WP:BLPSPS it cannot be used regarding claims related to living people, regardless of the source's reputation for accuracy or not. We have reliable sources like PC Gamer [1] and The Verge, which should be used instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: That is clearly not true. Polygnotus (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

...Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability... 1

...There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources...

...If using the link as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source...

...Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission...

...For example, a YouTube verification badge is used to identify an official channel of an established creator, business or organization...

...There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted...2 Polygnotus (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia LMG is not a person, it is a corporation. Corporate personhood notwithstanding, of course. 2405:4803:FD2E:4E00:4458:186E:B9DA:2102 (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not a BLP, and of course WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert" which is the case here. Polygnotus (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I general I agree, but calling someone making accusations towards a company a "subject matter expect" is a bit of a stretch. - Skipple ☎ 13:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Stephen Burke knows a hell of a lot about hardware. Describing him as a leading authority in computer hardware reviews is reasonable. Polygnotus (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Forgive me, I'm getting my accusations mixed up and thought we were referring to the sexual harassment accusations. I agree. - Skipple ☎ 13:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You almost made me spit out my toothpaste over my monitor. Polygnotus (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the point is mostly moot now since there are reliable secondary sources covering this. But while I think Gamers Nexus has great content, but it's also clearly an SPS. As with a lot of Youtubers, they are way too small to have any form of proper editorial control separated from the creators of the content.

Also while LMG may be a company, BLP still applies to this article as it does to every other page on Wikipedia. General commentary or criticism of LMG's editorial process are likely fine from a BLP standpoint but anything which touches too closely on any specific person e.g. Linus's or anyone else's comments and responses would need a non SPS. So for example, we cannot comment on the waterblock thing if the only source we have is Gamers Nexus since it's realistically not possible to comment on that without getting into Linus's rejection of testing it on a card it was designed for.

I mean we probably could get into the initial selling of it a bit, but that wasn't really the major part of the criticism and also we then have the problem that we cannot deal with Linus's responses. Note we cannot rely on ABOUTSELF for his responses either even without dealing with any criticism of his responses because his responses would fail both the unduly selfserving aspect as well as likely the third party aspect (at least when it comes to selling it).

Also while I somewhat doubt Gamer Nexus is going to touch the Reeve thing or at most a very minor comment, we definitely should not be going there with SPS. For starters Reeve herself is a living person, so even if she decided to publicise this now, we still cannot cover her using SPS. Also her statements deals with identifiable people at LMG, particularly Linus himself but also arguably Yvonne. And frankly we should also consider the risks for the currently unnamed but presumably living individuals dealt with in her statement consider the chance they will be identifiable sometime in the future.

In other words, although it involves a company, there only very little in this controversy that can be dealt with using SPS. It's just the nature of the company and their work that even with 100 employees, a lot of criticism is in some way or other going to touch on Linus. (I think some would suggest that might be partially why we have the current situation.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think their point is that Gamers Nexus isn't just a YouTube channel. It also has a long-running website https://www.gamersnexus.net/ which goes back to 2008, though it appears have not been posted to in a year. We treat YouTube videos on a per publisher basis, and one could argue that the videos are an extension of the website, even if the YouTube channel appears to have become the primary focus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That said, I have no real opinion on the reliability of Gamers Nexus (as an organisation that has both a website and a YouTube channel), but it's not necessary to cite them when we have coverage in reliable sources like The Verge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Dexerto appears to be fine as a source.

I just checked Wikipedia's search tool. Over 468 individual articles use Dexerto as a source in their reporting. It shouldn't be used as a primary source from what I'm gathering, but that specific article in question is accurate - but the allegations themselves that the former employee raised are questionable at best and were already denied by Linus Sebastian, and the CEO, Terren Tong, was shocked by the allegations along with Sebastian. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Currently in this article regarding Sexual Misconduct at LMG, there is a single source, Dexerto, of which there are multiple previous discussions on Wikipedia where consensus exists that the site is generally not a reliable source. (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) I recommend waiting until a reliable source reports on the topic, especially allegations of this nature. There is no rush to add information such as this to Wikipedia. Regardless, the information should not have been reverted to add back until consensus is reached on this topic. - Skipple ☎ 20:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I again apologize for being the one to add the whole paragraph using a Dexerto source. In retrospect, it seems the site were trying to rush out a story because of some crazy new information especially since LMG was already under scrutiny, which would be in violation of WP:BREAKING. Moreover, the article really skims over a lot of information in the original thread it's citing, which seems pretty sloppy. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Dexerto has been extensively discussed at RSN, and the conclusion has consistently been that it's a low quality source. There are more reputable sources like The Verge covering it now [2], so there's little reason to use it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Evelyn Marie, you have once again added Dexerto as a source of allegations of assault and sexism, while overwriting legitimate edits. In an effort to avoid WP:3RR and WP:WARRING I am asking you to self revert until these issues are fixed. - Skipple ☎ 20:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not removing it. Multiple sources (Kotaku, The Verge, etc) outside of Dexerto also mention the allegations, so by default it makes Dexerto accurate in this one scenario. Also, the Noticeboard isn't a Wikipedia policy, and I saw a more recent RfC re: Dexerto (from April 2019) where its fine to use in limited scenarios. And The Verge is also used in the section now as a source, so I see no problems. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I am perplexed by your apparent inability to a) wait until consensus is reached prior to making changes and b) fixing your edits before adding them back in. I'm not requesting that you outright remove the information from the article, but simply correct and add better sourcing for said information prior to adding it, especially when the topic is potentially libelous. As Hemiauchenia has shown, better sourcing exists, so why add Dexerto back in? There have been multiple threads where consensus has been reached that Dexerto is not a "fine source" as you suggest. I have linked you to 5 separate conversations that say as much. Regardless, I'm stepping away to avoid further confrontation. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. - Skipple ☎ 20:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skipple Because you followed the "revert, ask questions later" motto when you *first* removed that section, without even initially raising your concerns about Dexerto on the talk page. You don't remove substantial content without first discussing it on the talk page. Dexerto is fine as a source, it contains adequate information, and it pretty much aligns with The Verge and Kotaku here but Dexerto goes more in depth. Just because its been an iffy source in the past doesn't mean its still a bad source now. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I rescind what I said. Picard reverted the additions. Not you. I wholeheartedly apologize. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Regardless who reverted it - it was reverted because it does not meet WP:RS. While it is not listed explicitly in WP:RSP, it has been discussed multiple times in the past as Skipple pointed out - and not in contexts related to this current issue. Dexerto needs to be removed at best and replaced with reliable sources that state the same things the dexerto link says. WP:RSPTWITTER indicates that twitter is not a reliable source - and another source that only cites twitter as its source is no more reliable, and is simply using twitter by proxy. That still falls under WP:RSPTWITTER and doesn't meet WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picard's Facepalm (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm Kotaku cites Twitter as well because its the only way to source it. most sexual assault allegations seem to take place on Twitter / X. You can't get around not linking to or referring to Twitter in this scenario because that is where the claims were made. Regardless as to Twitter's Reliable Source standing or not, it is the only place you can find where the former employee mentioned the aforementioned allegations. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Evelyn Marie here, reliable sources based on primary self-published sources are reliable sources. The reliability is inherited from the publication's coverage. Whether or not it references Twitter is irrelevant. The whole point of RSPTWITTER is that twitter shouldn't be cited directly, but reliable sources that lend significance to content of twitter posts can. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

And as Dexerto is not considered a RS - that negates that. It is further compounded by the fact that an unreliable source citing twitter doesn't make it more reliable, and it doesn't get twitter out from under RSPTWITTER. At least when actual reliable sources cite twitter - they usually accompany it with some other sources and investigation into their report. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The whole opinion of Dexerto on Wikipedia is years old. It does not reflect the current journalistic practictices of the website in any way. I call for an updated RfC on the website because calling Dexerto unreliable despite the fact that it is, is damning to a website that appears to have reversed course since the last Noticeboard discussions that took place over 4 years ago. Dexerto isn't just a blog anymore, it is a full blown news publication with an entire editorial team and EiC. Dexerto's standing on Wikipedia needs to be severely re-evaluated because it is not an unreliable source anymore. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Evelyn Marie I disagree with your evaluation of the site. I view it as blog like nonsense, regurgitating Twitter and Twitch drama not fit for encyclopedic content. All that said I totally agree with a new RfC if you feel as though the editorial practice of the website has changed and would highly encourage you to start one. - Skipple ☎ 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skipple I think you misunderstand what "blog" means. From Oxford: a regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style. A blog doesn't have a professional team of journalists and editors spread across multiple offices publishing articles, nor do they have an entire senior management team comprised of 11 people. Nor do they have editorial standards publicly recorded, unlike Dexerto (see here). I genuinely believe you are relying on a years old evaluation of the website despite the fact that it is not a blog but rather a news site these days. It just leans into social media culture since thats where journalism is headed. Even The Verge, Kotaku, etc make heavy use of social media for citations in their articles these days. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Evelyn Marie This conversation is no longer relevant to the article for which this talk page is dedicated. I'm completely fine with continuing this conversation in an RfC or under WP:RS if you wish. - Skipple ☎ 22:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is now well outside the scope of the article in question, and looks like it needs 2 RfC actions elsewhere if it is to differ from how things are currently defined. Until that is changed - then we need to make sure the articles adhere to defined standards and practices. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If Dexerto counts as a blog, then so does The Verge, and Kotaku. But per Oxford's own definition, they are not blogs. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually - Kotaku is essentially a blog and is widely considered as much, and I was earlier considering reverts on that basis - but I let it go for the time being. The Verge most certainly is not - and is even positively listed in WP:RSP. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Kotaku is not a blog. It is not small, nor is it run by an indivdual or a small group of people. It is run by a significant number of editors and senior management staff, and is not written in an informal or conversational style. If you consider it a blog, you are literally going against the dictionary term for blog. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm I forgot to ping in the above comment. I genuinely believe Dexerto is an okay source. It isn't the downright best source but it isn't just a blog anymore. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

A source which only cites an unreliable source is not an okay source. I agree with Skipple that it is essentially a blog, and I'll add that with maybe just a dash of industry news aggregator put in for good measure. Viewed through that lens - it is honestly no better than twitter itself. Which again - is an unreliable source. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm So any article that cites Twitter is somehow unreliable now then, per your wording? Because The Verge ALSO links to Twitter in referencing this whole situation with Madison. I'm not trying to attack you or anything but it genuinely seems like you don't know what you're talking about with regards to this. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

No - now you are twisting what I said... so I'll try to be more clear: An unreliable (or questionable) source which cites only twitter as its ref source - is citing twitter by proxy. That cite in and of itself is what makes it unreliable. If Dexerto had other sources - then this would be a different story. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, every single publication to have mentioned the Madison situation have cited Twitter because that is the only place where the claims Madison made are located. Do you not know how sourcing works? - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I do, and I stated how reliable sourcing works - which you don't seem to know. You trying to validate twitter here is not going to attain your desired goal, as that is not where that is decided. If you feel that strongly about it - then you need to re-take up twitter not being a RS up at the WP:RSN. Not here. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but nothing you say is going to convince me to agree with you regarding Twitter, and it seems that even @Hemiauchenia disagrees with you. This entire conversation was brought up because of Dexerto's standing on Wikipedia as to whether or not its a reliable source, and it is. I see no journalistic data errors or journalism errors in their recent coverage that I've looked at. So I'm sorry but your claim that Twitter isn't viable as a secondary source is moot when it isn't even used as a direct source in the article. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oy. Except it was used as the primary source by the source in question. What you are suggesting is no better than WP articles being their own sources - which of course is forbidden. Again - this discussion has run its course here as it extends well beyond the scope of this article. If you want to change the standards as they are now - you have at least 2 actions to take in RS. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but its not directly linked to on Wikipedia. Reliable sources, specifically the aspect referring to Twitter, seems to refer to tweets being used as direct sources, e.g. using Twitter links in the cite web reference block. But it is not. So again, I disagree. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm I have opened an RfC over on the RS Noticeboard. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not going to work. Just because twitter is the only source it has been posted to does not change the fact that WP:RSPTWITTER identifies as an unreliable source. I will preface my next statement with this - because I am sure it will otherwise draw the ire of people hovering over this page that are just itching to raise the sexist, denier, bigot flag:

I am not denying her claim. Period.

Any question as to my intent with my following words should refer to that one, simple statement.

Until there is a reliable source which is then used as the ref - proxy cites that root back to twitter should be avoided at all costs. Reliable sources include (among others); a police report, a court filing (civil or criminal), an interview with a local newspaper, TV station, industry trade mag or website which are already recognized as reliable sources. Alternatively of course - if LMG makes a statement regarding the issue or outcome of the supposed investigation.

"Most sexual assault allegations seem to take place on Twitter" does not validate twitter or make it a reliable source, nor does it validate the claims posted there. And for God's sake - that is not where they should be conducted... they should be conducted in the presence of law enforcement. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is not reliable, but that doesn't mean that reports based on Twitter are unreliable. The reliability of sources applies to Wikipedia not the sources used by Wikipedia. If a reliable source bases it's article of statements made on Twitter then that article is reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is using Twitter as a source. People are using secondary sources that in turn use Twitter. Cortador (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Dexerto isn't outright blocked as a source on Wikipedia, by the way. If it was entirely blocked outright, it would be a completely different story. But it's not, so removing critical content over a source you disagree with is still bad. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

One more thing: It wasn't an intentional revert. You edited the article before I finished editing and before I had added details from the Verge about the accusation denials. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you are referring to here. The edits I am referring to (1, 2) occurred hours prior to your revert. SomeNeatGiraffes has graciously restored them. Thank you. - Skipple ☎ 21:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Opened at discussion at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dexerto. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia Lol, it seems we both had the same idea. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Current event template

Do you guys mind if I add a current event template? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Current_event_templates Polygnotus (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Polygnotus No, I don't mind. It'll probably stay a current event as more detail come to light re: all these controversies. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Is the current event template cool with you? Polygnotus (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both I have added the template. Polygnotus (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it - I actually meant to yesterday but got distracted by the rest of the discussion. It would also be good for everyone to keep WP:DELAY in mind as well. It would probably be best for some dust to settle so as to lend itself to concise edits to the page. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Brief mention of the controversies..."

Is this really necessary in the lead section of the article? This is far from the first controversy surrounding the company, and it is greatly expanded upon later in the article. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree - unless controversies have long lasting and impactful consequences to the company, it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. At minimum it's too soon. I've went ahead and removed the statement. - Skipple ☎ 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"Gamers Nexus" section

Our section focuses on the Billet Labs, with other points (mistakes and inaccuracies caused by "rushing things out the door") presented as an afterthought, when it appears that GamersNexus's focus was the reverse, with Billet Labs as only one subpoint; I propose refocusing it on the criticism about rushing and mistakes. Also propose changing the section heading accordingly (criticism of rushed videos and mistakes) instead of titling it after Gamers Nexus. Both would improve the section's NPOV. DFlhb (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

AFAIR the Billet Labs vid did not cause the reaction of GN, it was a vid of the new LMG Labs where an employee claimed that for each video they would always re-test, update and validate the data unlike GN or HWUB where he claimed they'd re-use old data. That pissed of both Yuotubers and GN started verifying the broad claims made by the LMG Labs employee just to find many avoidable data errors and this major issue with the prototype mishandling. --Denniss (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"Controversies"

WP:CRITICISM aside, CBC just published an article covering bits of the situation (since more reliable sourcing has been requested). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

References