Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Find video game sources: "GamersNexus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Saw their name being thrown around on social media recently, but I'm not fully convinced, so wanted to get others' thoughts. Not to be confused with Gaming Nexus, which is currently listed as unreliable. Has a website, but appears to be primarily video focused. Already in use on multiple articles. Includes an ethics page. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberlink420 If this is an example of their coverage, I am concerned. It is not signed by any person (that I noticed), uses royal "we", and they have no editorial about us or such I could find. This kind of content could be AI generated, or otherwise made up, and is no better than an anonymous blog, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Top right it has Writing, Lead editing Steve Burke, and Research and Writing Ben Benson. Steve Burke is also the presenter in all their youtube videos (there is at least a review/hardware channel, and a consumer advocacy/protection type channel). Wilbers (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable per the example coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Cukie Gherkin this appears to be a mistake on your part. Their byline is on the right hand side of the page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally Reliable - GamersNexus is primarily video based but has been reviving its written content in recent years. I think it's fair to say they're extremely well-regarded within the industry as an outlet, especially for hardware items, and they're pretty much my go to source for hardware reviews. They're extremely transparent in their editorial, and also keep a running log of errors and corrections on their website which is good to see. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

They are a specialized outlet for gamer hardware, which I would say is "Situational". IgelRM (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Gameliner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Hi, we would like to open a discussion in regards of adding Gameliner.nl to the list of reliable gaming resources. Gameliner has been founded in 2005 and focuses on gaming news, reviews, articles and previews. The editorial staff consists of 12 actual active writers/ editors. The platform is a used as a source by both OpenCritic as MetaCritic for a longer period of time and has posted approximately 3.000 gaming reviews since its founding (all of which are still available for reading to date).

Gameliner is one of the last independent Dutch gaming media outlets and provides it's articles in Dutch, which of course would make it a foreign language platform. All additional information in regards to the platform have been provided in [games/sources]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudyWijnberg (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Further context here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg: If you're here, then I might as well ask you a few questions. What's your editorial policy and what's your stance on AI? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@EnvironmentalDoor Our Editiorial staff is 100% human, as well as our front- and backenders. Our bios are written below every article and every editor can be verified via multiple sources such as LinkedIn. We are a 100% independent, human and long lasting crew of writers.

I'n regards to the comment by @Piotrus regarding the mehness and non recognition of the platform. We are actually recognized and validated by Metacritic, which is I believe a very reliable source on here is it not? As a Dutch platform it is quite hard to outshine megacorps like the IGN's, Gamespot and other million dollar companies. ~2026-67876-7 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to login appearantly RudyWijnberg (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair, but 1) I don't see the bios - see links below? You have a dedicated bio section in the author profile pages, but the bios are elsewhere? 2) Metacritic argument is fair and I'll wait for others to comment on whether that's enough (and if not, why - I am curious). As for other forms of recognition, as a Pole I write about Polish sources and I know sources are hit and miss, but the more important platforms like yours tend to be able to point to some mentions of them by occasional other reliable media and if lucky enough, scholars. Was your platform ever profiled or mentioned by a Dutch newspaper, magazine or such? (I did search, with no luck, but I don't speak Dutch, and I am also well aware of that older mentions tend to be not digitized).

On a separate note, I see a critical comment at nl:Wikipedia:Te_beoordelen_pagina's/Toegevoegd_20160320 by @Fred Lambert (sadly, they seem inactive since last November, so I am unsure they can stop by to elaborate). I don't think nl wiki ever had or has an article about Gameliner (which is not a strike against, notability=/=reliability, just observing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Being in Metacritic (or OpenCritic) is not a hallmark of reliability. Huge swathes of sources in both are unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, the Bio on the profiles are just user pages, all of our users and commenters have those. We don't offer testimonials or former work about the editors. The "Colofon" page gives an overview of all people associated, their role and their year of starting/ ending at Gameliner.

In regards to the peer assessment, as shown in the Colofon we have both an editor in chief and a managing editor, who are in charge of checking the articles for any inconsistencies, dubious facts or speculation. Our Editorial guidelines are not published on the site itself, they are shared internally though. RudyWijnberg (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg Would you consider making them public? I don't see how it would be problematic, and would help for your case here (and perhaps elsewhere). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be possible. Let me make it a bit user friendly, as it is now mainly used by the staff. Should be up before the weekend. In the meantime, tried to find some noticable mentions. The NOS (dutch broadcasting association) requests our expertise on occasion Example can be found here (with editor Claudia Tjia) RudyWijnberg (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg How has this whole editorial guidelines thing been going so far? Would it be OK to provide an update? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @EnvironmentalDoor sure! Nearly there, currently on a small holiday break and had some other domain related updates which had to be done first. On it, though, i'll drop a note once live! RudyWijnberg (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @EnvironmentalDoor, pleased to notify you that we've just published the editorial guidelines (redactionele richtlijnen). These can be found in the header under "more" and/or by just visiting this page RudyWijnberg (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts: I cannot locate editorial policy outside information about recruitment, which itself is fine but does not suggest any form of peer review/supervision (on the plus side, there is no suggestion they use AIs - but there is also nothing saying they don't), their about us is more of a history and 'cool stuff we do'; there is no information there that the site won any awards or received any form of recognition from anyone. Team members are not anonymous , two sample bios I checked are empty , , which makes it hard to confirm credentials of their team members. So, errr, pretty meh-ish for me. They are better than a social media / AI platform, the structure is reasonably average, but there is also no evidence they recognized (no awards, press coverage reported). I can't say they are unreliable, but I can't say they are a strong source either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems reliable now given updates/comments/discussion above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Public editorial guidelines, no AI usage, obviously not a small team, real people... I'm entirely comfortable with marking this as reliable. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Cinema Blend" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I'm proposing this be reexamined, as I don't think the prior discussions were thorough enough to actually put it under unreliable. Looking at their about page, they indicate that they follow The Editors' Code of Practice for independent sources. I also question listing as unreliable because none of the articles identified what is wrong with their content. I mean, the content does not appear to be revolutionizing media discussion, but I have not found issue with anything I've seen. Not only that, but they're clearly not some rinky dink website; in the past week, they published 20 interviews, including of CM Punk, Paul Giamatti, and Bill Skarsgard. Looking at Google Scholars, they're also cited incredibly often; clearly, they are considered reliable enough to be cited as frequently as they are in published works.

While Cinema Blend primarily focuses on television and movies, almost exclusively, being that they cover shows and movies about video game adaptations, it makes sense to list them here in some capacity. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable: The Code of Practice seems to mainly focus on ethics company policies, which is fine. According to their about page, they cover "what fans are into" with their "own insights, opinions and perspective". They also mark advertorials and sponsored content as such. This recent article is marked as having affiliate links, with the actual article itself reading in a more informal manner. Based on these brief checks, I wouldn't say they are outright unreliable, which CB is currently marked as. Instead, I think WP:MREL would be fair, as better, reliable sources such as Radio Times and Gizmodo are available. 11WB (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational It's not an unusable source, judging from what I see, but it's very weak. I would not use it when stronger sources are available, but I don't see why it can't be used. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I recall the very old articles were particular blog-like. Perhaps improved, but these are often cited for "quick Google" convenience and not for good reason. IgelRM (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...American City Business Journals..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This source was previously discussed at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Quite a few info on varies video game companies from the different business Journals (Washington Business Journal, Baltimore Business Journal, etc)

Examples. , ,

I propose we add this to other reliable sources. Timur9008 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the RSN talks? Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

No consensus Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_485#BizJournals. Timur9008 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I should note I've been checking these for info from 1996 to 2000. Not sure if the current stuff is reliable. Timur9008 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's stately a business trade source, which should be viewed in that context. E.g. not giving notability, but fine corporate reliability. IgelRM (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the examples cited and I don't see any problems, seems pretty standard if uninspired type of coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "GamerGen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Stylized as GAMERGEN. Their copyright information indicates they are a long running site (2005-2026). Can't find an about page or editorial policy. Unsure how to feel about this one. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable: No editorial policies or about page. This recent "article" is a couple of paragraphs giving the price and nothing else. If this is what qualifies as "news" to them, this should probably be avoided. Especially when we have actual reliable sources that do a much better job of reporting on the same thing. 11WB (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  The comparison here is between a French website and English ones, which assumingly have different focus areas? But I don't know of anything that makes it reliable either. IgelRM (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I decided to look into this one, and found that the discussions deeming it unreliable have largely been based on only very few people. In my opinion, and I don't blame anyone for this, but I believe Twinfinite was erroneously labeled unreliable. There were claims that staff did not seem to have experience working on reliable sources. However, using muckrack, I can verify that to not be true. For instance:

1. Managing editor Chris Jecks: Siliconera, PCGamesN
2. Ana Mitic: Siliconera, Prima Games, The Escapist, Destructoid
3. Damiano Gerli: IGN Italia, VICE, Kotaku, PC Gamer
4. Gordan Perisic: The Escapist, Destructoid
5. Jovan Krstić: Destructoid, The Escapist, Dot Esports
6. Keenan McCall: Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Monthly
7. Maja Kovačević: Destructoid, The Escapist
8. Ben Williams: The New York Times, Nature, The Washington Post, Entrepreneur

With the website's strong fact-checking policy, corrections policy, review policy, and ethics policy, I believe that this is a perfectly acceptable entry as a reliable source. The only downside of this source is that any sourcing worth citing is basically defunct, as the site only does guide content anymore, but I believe there is nothing damaging older sources' usability on Wikipedia. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Conditional RS: Their news page has nothing from after October 2025, which is a bit odd. On that basis, they clearly aren't reliable for up-to-date news. @Cukie's comment on being defunct is accurate.

Their Expedition 33 review written by Ben Williams isn't really anything special in all honesty. I wouldn't say it is either reliable or unreliable in that sense. A GTA VI console update by Damiano Gerli is straight to the point, no extra nonsense that readers won't care about or don't need to know about, beyond the update itself. Their policies are also short and straight, with no immediate red flaggs. Twinfinite is also owned by Gamurs, who own Destructoid among other marginally reliable outlets.

Their 2017 staff appear to be completely different to their current staff. I trust @Cukie's list is probably correct, though one check for Ben Williams writing for NYT turned up with nothing. I will say Twinfinite is probably reliable, on the condition other editors don't find things that would make them untrustworthy. 11WB (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable I concur with Cukie that the evidence provided is adequate for a re-approval for the website's reliability. Good policies, strong team with a background (I did find out that Ben Williams hadn't wrote for the New York Times despite what MuckRack says, but I am willing to believe that is a problem with MR rather than the actual author) and well written articles. Being apart of Gamurs shouldn't really be a problem for the site as we use many reliable sources of theirs, that said it maybe the reason why they have stopped doing anything that isn't a guide. However, I would suggest maybe listing the website with suggested cutoff points similar to Kotaku, whereby I would probably cut off past the last discussion and then maybe also suggest avoid using the more recent guide churnalism. Something like 2018 or 2019 (around the time they hired their Managing Editor) to 2024 or 2025 which is around when their news articles stopped. CaptainGalaxy 21:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable - I was also puzzled on why it was labeled unreliable. Authors like Giuseppe Nelva often covered niche topics and offered insightful commentary: example Jotamide (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps the site improved, but neither spotlighting or commentary equals journalistic standards. I recall serious concerns before. IgelRM (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I am quite new to the in and outs of Wikipedia but what makes SteamDB (or any of these sites) less reliable than somebody writing an article which provides statistics? I've done a little research into SteamDB and I can see that it uses Steam's public APIs to provide live and historic player counts. The accuracy is reliable because this can be confirmed with Steam itself when visiting a game's community hub as it shows the players in-game, there's maybe a 5-10 player discrepancy between SteamDB and Steam itself in games with 20,000+ players. In terms of providing statistics without a bias it seems very reliable?

Are we saying Steam is an unreliable source for conveying player counts on Steam? Why?

I guess the question I am trying to ask is: why is an article from somebody who may or may not have a bias more reliable than statistics which are accurate and data driven? JackFrostyG (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

See the most recent discussion on it here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Archived discussion doesn't fully answer my question. While it may not be reliable in other areas it is certainly reliable in use of obtaining a player-count for Steam as proven by Steam itself when visiting the Community Hub and checking the '___ Player's in Game'.

I also still don't understand why we would not use an unbiased Statistic from Steam's own public API for a game published on Steam when editing around player count at a minimum, but we would include an article including a figure with no source of it's own, can be biased and is less accurate. JackFrostyG (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't use SteamDB for player statistics because we don't care about player statistics unless its creating noticeable impact and commentary by reliable sources. SteamDB isn't that, it's just a number, carrying no context. As for the rest, I don't think its worth getting into the "but why are unproven estimates bad when companies might just be lying anyway". SteamDB is not a reliable source. There is no verification of its figure, simply a blackbox estimate using various pieces of public data. There is no editorial process happening here. Yeah, it's probably close, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia policy. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It's exact reasoning is to give context. It is the base of any article and Wiki page that discusses player count on Steam and the majority of pages discuss reception, engagement or count. If this is unreliable despite being verifiable via Steam then every Wiki Page discussing these topics has no reliability unless we can see where these figures are coming from.

"but why are unproven estimates bad when companies might just be lying anyway" - Steam can be used to verify SteamDB's player count figures. Where is this quote from? Why are we now mentioning companies?

Next, by this logic, articles giving player counts are also unproven estimates and therefore unreliable as they aren't verifiable. They can add all the context they want to the subject, but if there's no verifiability of player count then we can't take the source as reliable when discussing this topic. JackFrostyG (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You're not arguing from a position of Wikipedia policy. The words verifiable and reliable aren't just common words for Wikipedia. Verifiability is essentially "Can you check a reliable source and it cites that data?" Yes. We can. When PCGamer or Eurogamer or another WP:RS as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines writes and publishes an article that states a game has sold however many copies, that satisfies WP:V. It's not "Can I, the reader, directly ask and verify this number with Valve?". It's "Do we have a reliable source to use that verifies this claim?"

SteamDB does not pass WP:RS, lacking any editorial control, using guesstimates gleaned from various public statistics (Steam does *not* publish sales figures. SteamDB does *not* have them. They estimate from other data). SteamDB does not talk to industry partners, does not report actual sales releases, does not do research or factchecking. It simply ingests various player statistics to calculate out a guess. So its figures are not usable on Wikpiedia. -- ferret (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I don't agree with the Wikipedia policy in relation to sourcing/using statistics then and that is an issue for a different page, if you are being genuine.

Other than that, we're going to be going around in circles so let's not waste our time and thank you for the discussion. JackFrostyG (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Gamers Heroes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

seems... very mildly not up to par? and i really do mean "you could just stare at the ball hard enough and it would probably fall into the hole". despite the worrisomely fast output, it seems to be doing the cooking by the book with its two editors (plus a third one who seems to be on hiatus, probably due to having three ankle biters to take care of), which i fortunately managed to find proof of existence for, which is to say that i don't think it's ai slop. really, by all metrics i can think of besides the possibility of churnalism, it seems to be reliable enough to not be unreliable, but not much more

also, this might just be something on my end, but the general review list refuses to load, so i have to look through each editor's output. how very consequential that is when it boils down to three people~ consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

What in the world are you trying to say? I can't parse statements like "reliable enough to be unreliable, but not much more." Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

it's "reliable enough to not be unreliable", big difference. basically, this seems like an extremely run-of-the-mill, extremely okay source, aside from the possible churnalism (which could land it on "situational" when it comes to non-review pieces) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, you chose to use a double negative for some reason. Okay, that makes a little more sense. Still not really sure where you're coming from with your assessment though. Do they have an editorial policy with oversight? Credentialled writers? Cited by other reliable sources? We need something more concrete than "kinda looks okayish I guess". Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

sorry, this comment blew out of proportion because i actually did find stuff, even though said stuff was of varying levels of underwhelmingness

starting backwards with citations from other outlets: several other outlets seem to routinely use their content (usually guides or walkthroughs) as points of reference in menial stuff, like polygon recently using a guide to discuss an obscure quest, inverse using one almost wholesale, and them being a partner of opencritic (which really isn't worth much for whichever valnet-shaped reason you want to point at first). this isn't much, but this whole paragraph was actually just a red herring for findings more directly related to the individual members~

• this from pre-valnet polygon, which cites lead writer #3 casey scheld's work, namely a... sandwich. weird, but thematically relevant, it is about swery
• this from unreliable source svg detailing lead writer #1 blaine smith's review of the medium, which i'm just leaving here for the sake of being able to say that i didn't forget it
• and finally, for lead writer #2 johnny hurricane, i found a grand total of... nothing of note

so still underwhelming with only one noteworthy citation from a reliable source that turned 13 just last week (which i guess could also prove some level of experience in the field?)

for credentials...

• blaine seems to be a bit of a circular case: he's apparently been doing freelance writing since 2005, but his only noteworthy stuff seems to be from his work in gamers heroes... or bird app antics i value my life too much to check. still, in the area of journalism, he seems to be somewhat trusted, even if his pre-gh work is hard to find because of his vague name
• johnny is the trio(?)'s social media guy, his only contributions seem to be related to gh and its social media account. even the site doesn't list any credentials or milestones for him beyond social media numbers. definitely the weakest link here, and probably enough to warrant the whole outlet being considered unreliable by himself
• lastly, and not actually underwhelmingly this time, casey seems to have the most monetarily useful credentials, with a master's degree and years of experience in various things. he also has a site to flex, i guess. how immediately useful those things actually are for gaming journalism seems to be anyone's guess, though

finally, for the editorial policy and oversight... i guess their review policy (boiling down to "we're not in the mood to sell scores") and scoring system explanation thingy (boiling down to "there is one in place") count, but that's probably not worth much considering the previous two

this overall means that my assessment is still a big ol' shrug, but i can confirm that they're at the very least not outright shit. maybe stuck in the early state of an outlet for about 15 years by now, but not shit. except johnny, he really needs to do other stuff consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...The Escapist..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

The Escapist is currently listed as Situational with content between October 2017 and July 2018 to be handled with care.

I believe newer content may no longer be reliable due to this article:

Clickout Media, owner of websites such as Esports Insider and The Escapist, has told its staff that they are being laid off. The layoffs come just a week after they began laying off freelancers and pausing all future freelance hires.

Insider Gaming understands that the company is making a heavy pivot to AI content, resulting in almost all of its editorial staff being let go.

It was said that Clickout Media will be maintaining a skeleton crew of “AI Editors.”

“Sad to say that my role at The Escapist is up for redundancy, and that means a lot of things that I’m still not quite getting my head around,” The Escapist writer Lloyd Coombes wrote, though he did not mention the AI pivot in his posting.

It’s also believed that employees being let go are being forced to sign an NDA from speaking publicly about the layoffs, at risk of not receiving their severance payouts.

https://insider-gaming.com/clickout-media-owner-of-the-escapist-pivots-to-ai-holds-mass-layoffs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinNyanko (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

unreliable per... uh... "per nom" is also a thing here, right? let's all laugh at an industry that never learns anything, tee hee hee consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable after December 2025 & situational before (they did have some decent coverage of tabletop products for a bit but I don't recall using Escapist for video game coverage). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

"Insider Gaming" is not a reliable source, so I don't think there should be changes solely based on that. IgelRM (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

GamesIndustry.biz (link) & Aftermath (link) reported on a major round of layoffs in April 2025 which impacted Escapist; A.V. Club (link) & Kotaku (link) picked up Insider Gaming's coverage of the more recent layoffs and AI pivot. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Another Clickout Media website, VideoGamer, was caught earlier using a fake writer to create reviews. This led to two reviews being removed from Metacritic and allegedly future VideoGamer reviews not being added to the site. A former VideoGamer editor also mentioned the use of that AI writer. While this isn't The Escapist, they're both owned by the same company. This supports the statement that Clickout Media is using AI to generate content. Not to mention, they also aren't disclosing it.

I mentioned in a previous thread about The Escapist's reliability that their Managing Editor has stated using genAI to make images for another Clickout Media property as well. Snakester95 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...Esports Insider..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Esports Insider is currently listed as reliable.

I believe newer content may no longer be reliable due to this article:

Clickout Media, owner of websites such as Esports Insider and The Escapist, has told its staff that they are being laid off. The layoffs come just a week after they began laying off freelancers and pausing all future freelance hires.

Insider Gaming understands that the company is making a heavy pivot to AI content, resulting in almost all of its editorial staff being let go.

It was said that Clickout Media will be maintaining a skeleton crew of “AI Editors.”

“Sad to say that my role at The Escapist is up for redundancy, and that means a lot of things that I’m still not quite getting my head around,” The Escapist writer Lloyd Coombes wrote, though he did not mention the AI pivot in his posting.

It’s also believed that employees being let go are being forced to sign an NDA from speaking publicly about the layoffs, at risk of not receiving their severance payouts.

https://insider-gaming.com/clickout-media-owner-of-the-escapist-pivots-to-ai-holds-mass-layoffs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinNyanko (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...site name..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · URL... LinkTo

For those who aren't aware, Kotaku changed ownership in recent months and under new management look to be expanding their human journalistic operations in complete contrast to the previous owners wanting to AI everything that saw the downgrade.

Therefore wish to reopen discussion as to whether to return the site to Generally Reliable following the change in ownership given the positive directions they appear to be taking. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think in retrospect the decision to classify Kotaku as fully unreliable post-mid 2023 was jumping the gun. The only AI thing that came out of it IIRC was the Kotaku Australia domain being sold to an AI content farm. But I don't think anything AI really came to the main site?

Kotaku did undeniably have a period there where their content was kind-of content farmy, but we already noted that even when they were reliable. The July 2023 cut off was 100% based on the AI thing, which did not go far. I think we should revert the unreliable classification and just go back to the "be cautious of certain types of articles" status quo that existed prior. λ NegativeMP1 00:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 G/O Media did indeed have AI articles, to the point G/O Media staff themselves criticised it, so the reclassification in that regard was justified (and even then as said the situational nature was just G/O Media in general).

However it does appear the new owner is going in a positive direction in terms of funding their operations well, so I think the concerns for why it was reduced have been dealt with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If that's the case, then maybe have something where mid-2023 to late-2025 articles should be treated with extra caution to make sure they're not AI generated, but not strictly unreliable. It wasn't their entire output, was it? λ NegativeMP1 00:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The GUNREL for the latter G/O Media period was for a variety of things by the end (content farming, editorial interference by management etc), with the undisclosed AI usage being the last straw.

Like I say, I think the cleanest move would be to leave the G/O Media period as it currently stands (a slow move to generally unreliable) and then for the new ownership move it back towards reliable because it looks to have sizeably increased in quality and be getting editorial resource. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that G/O Media should be possibly reliable, as there were still staff with experience at other reliable sources doing journalism there. I think we should just advise caution, and particularly to check the author of an article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I recall they published a few AI-generated articles under G/O. The main issue was that, like CNET, they weren't marking the content as AI (they simply published them without a credited author) which wasn't acceptable in our eyes. That being said, they definitely seem to have turned things around since July 2025. I'm fine with treating articles published after the Keleops acquisition as reliable, though it should still remain under the situational section due to the iffy reliability of pre-2010 articles and the 2023-2025 period where they were a clear content farm. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 10:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure it was Kotaku? I remember that a G/I outlet did, but I don't remember it being Kotaku. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

. Articles "written" by "Kotaku Bot" weren't properly marked, such as this simply not listing an author at the time of publication. Based on my look through archive.org, they still weren't distinguishing AI articles as late as May 2025, which looks to be when they discontinued it. I will note that they still are publishing a ton of promotional crap that looks AI-generated, though it's at least marked. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If the time period is marked situational, it should specify that articles without author credit shouldn't be used since it is an AI indicator. Per WP:SPONSORED, as long as promotional "articles" are marked as such and you can distinguish between them & regular articles, then we don't really have to consider them when doing the evaluation. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable - I was also thinking about starting this discussion. Kotaku is now owned by the same parent company (Keleops) that bought Gizmodo; along with expanding the staff size, the new owners did away with some of the G/O Media weirdness (such as restoring the ability to comment on articles). I haven't seen any AI indicators on either Gizmodo or Kotaku since they were purchased. Keleops also "owns several French-language technology titles, including legacy brands 01net and Presse-citron"; I'm not seeing anything in the WP:RSP noticeboard archives about either of those sites but might be worth looking at to get a better sense of how Keleops manages the outlets it owns. I also agree with NegativeMP1 that Kotaku from mid-2023 to mid-2025 could be considered situational instead of unreliable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable but with a note that mid-2023-mid-2025 should be considered highly situational per above. As of now it looks like things are good for now, but this is definitely something that can be re-evaluated later if need be. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable; it always bothered me that Kotaku had fully been considered situational when for the majority of its over-20-years span, its articles were of good quality, only tarnished by a brief period in which they could be construed as situational. I support moving the source up to generally reliable. –GM 02:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable per above. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

reliable, but with a little prejudice to reconsidering previous consensuses (consensi?), as "reliable but watch out for geekier stuff" and "reliable when it's not ai slop" are pretty plainly the case for its states before. maybe separate it into four sections though, including that ai skinwalker that stole kotaku australia's domain consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that this re-evaluation is probably more consistent with how we've handled these situations that have been happening in recent years. (Polygon, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Given this seems unanimous at least in terms of it now being considered GENREL again, are there any issues with therefore closing this at least for that aspect (GENREL since ownership change) and leaving the status for previous periods unchanged given the lack of clear consensus from discussion on those aspects? Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no issues with closing this discussion and listing it as reliable. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "noclip360" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This is completely unreliable, but more here for a history of discussion just in case it persists and we get people trying to cite it. The latest venture of Mark Kern's, the site is completely AI generated, down to the comments section... Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable. Good to have discussion record I suppose, but feels almost unneeded in this case. ~2026-11263-84 (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "AndroidMag" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Magazine with an editorial team. I've found reviews by them to be useful when sourcing. However, they are scarcely cited on Wikipedia. Has anyone ever used them as a source before? NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Does anybody want to discuss this? NewAccount7295 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This one's kinda interesting. Here's their about page and staff members, review scores details, and the companies they have worked with. Kazama16 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Some good content, but seems unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Can't see reliable sources citing them, no established writers, no editorial policy, accepts guest posts. TinNyanko (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to make a new subsection for sites purchased by ClickOut Media, similar to Valnet. Per this article, they have been pivoting hard to AI generated content and laid off most if not all staff. Affected sites include The Escapist, Adventure Gamers, Esports Insider, and VideoGamer [EDIT: a report from Aftermath has gone into further detail, including identifying more sites they've bought such as Esports News UK], and the results have been almost immediate: as of today, AI-generated reviews of Resident Evil Requiem and Pokémon Fire Red/Leaf Green were uploaded to VideoGamer that resulted in the site being blacklisted from Metacritic, and multiple contributor bylines have been overwritten with AI profiles. IMO, we need to clearly cordon off any sites under their ownership and establish hard cut-offs for when they were considered reliable/situational (though the replacement of the bylines will admittedly make this more difficult and will perhaps require additional vetting if older content is being cited). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Support cordoning off ClickOut Media owned outlets in a similar fashion to Valnet. I think December 2025 as an end date for reliable/situational makes sense if the AI generated content just started in 2026 (ie. seems to have occurred following the 2026 layoffs). The rewriting of older article bylines is such a pain; probably means treating those sources as dead & using archive links. This is where I'd normally suggest making a WP:URLREQ but the editors who run that seem swamped by WP:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY cleanup so it might be a bit before an automated "mark everything as dead" solution is available. In the meantime, I'd suggest adding guidance in the new ClickOut Media section about marking those sources as dead & adding archive links. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I might even go earlier. The second Kotaku article states that social accounts for the fake writers started popping up in October 2025, so there might be some AIgen articles in there even before the layoffs. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Bummer. Maybe situational from various sale dates to somewhere in Oct-Dec 2025 and unreliable afterwards? Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should consider deprecating - We already have a couple of individual discussions above on individual publications but I was coming here anyway to suggest we outright deprecate them given as shown with VideoGamer (genuinely depressing how far that's fallen from the 2010s when it was so truly unique, in particular its now largely wiped video content) the new owners are actively engaged in deliberate attempts to mislead readers into thinking it's not AI by generating fake social media profiles for their "writers".

I think this adds a new level of risk that goes beyond simply being unreliable so would deserve consideration of active warning and blocking that deprecating carries. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Deprecate for all content from October 2025. Even if the AI content only started this week, I feel that it is too risky to include anything from October 2025-February 2026, especially if they are trying to trick others into believing it is human work. I would also suggest adding it to the spam filter. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd be against adding it the spam filter because it would prevent the use of archived older work which is usable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Support/deprecate per nom. This is quite dire. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Support/deprecate. The sources of these companies are not concerned with the quality of the content, but rather with monetization. Furthermore, it is not an honest company; it tried to deceive several people with content written by AI. I also agree with its inclusion on the spam list. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support deprecating post-December 2025: I'm currently updating WP:VG/S and the cite plugins, but I fully support this. They were low quality sources before, and now they are unusable sadly. 11WB (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Tech Times (https://www.techtimes.com/) is listed as a reliable source under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General computing/technology, and I'd suggest re-evaluating that. See RSN in 2022 (three editors considered it unreliable), RSN 2024 (three more editors agreed), and this RSN thread I just posted. It posts a lot of lightly-rewritten content from other sources and solicits for paid placement in articles, and it's not clear whether they appropriately disclose paid placement. Looks like it's currently cited in about 185 relevant articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Thumb Culture" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I'm in the process of creating a draft for a video game article and there's a few potential sources that haven't yet been reviewed as far as I can tell that I'd like to see consensus on. The first of these I'd like to see clarified is Thumb Culture, a gaming review and news site. (I'll ask about the other sources I'd like clarification with once a consensus is made here, as to not overflow the page with questions.)

There does seem to be an editorial process with the reviews, since the review policy on the site states each article is read by the Editor-in-Chief for approval before being published.

The reviews also don't seem to be user generated. The site's about page claims the team uses a small team of writers and content creators in order to write reviews. Individual author biographies, which can be found at the bottom of the author's reviews, don't always list credentials unfortunately, but a couple of them do.

I'm not really the best at gauging reliability of currently unreviewed sources on my own, so it'd be great if someone could give its reliability (or potential lack of such) a more thorough investigation than my inexperienced self can. I would personally say situational just as a gut feeling, but again, not that experienced at gauging reliability and could be wrong on either side. ThyCheshireCat (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Leaning unreliable. Wordpress site isn't a good start, but the fact it's a small team of people who seem to lack strong journalistic credentials (At least the ones I checked at a glance) and many don't include full credits. While they aren't USERGEN I wouldn't consider this a particularly strong source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Would be helpful to determine if this is reliable or not. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 25#Gamepur?

Stuff other than content:

• It's under Gamurs these days, which I guess I would describe as "could be worse", some of their other gaming publications are under reliable or situational.
• There's ...some WP:UBO. Not a ton.
• Searching for their staff shows some cross-pollination with RS. Games journalists at least considered it a real outlet to write for. (, , , , )

Content:

• They seemed to have stopped publishing reviews, features, or news after mid-2024 (and it looks like it was already greatly thinned out by 2024), switching to guideslop instead.
• They have (had?) an editorial policy.
• Their content, when they were making it, seemed of reasonable quality.

I'd give them a situational ("within, if on the outer reaches of, the orbit of online games journalism" to put it colorfully) until mid-2024, and a "not usable for anything because they no longer produce journalistic content" after that. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Did some analysis on these for a GAN review, all appear generally unreliable, and figured I might as well put these here to get them marked on VG/S. (Selfish goal: I want them red on my cite highlighter in the future.) ~ A412 ^talk! 06:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a gaming site I used to establish notability for Pokémon Insurgence, specifically this article. This one is bylined as a staff editorial. Their editorial standards prioritise "authenticity and accuracy through meticulous research" and refer to an experienced team of gaming journalists. They maintain editorial independence, so no shill-ing, which is always good to see. They disclose COIs and are transparent about who they partner with. They also have a reasonable rating methodology, using the standard 1-10 scale.

The broccoli goes cold however when I attempt to look up their bylined writers. Bearing in mind, I went into this looking to establish this site as reliable, I can't find their authors anywhere else on the web...

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable outlets. Fortunately, Mic and Kotaku have this covered for Insurgence. This site is a question mark for me at this time.

Find video game sources: "GamesRecon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo 11WB (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I would consider it unreliable due to the lack of credentials. Their article titles make me suspect that they're little better than a content farm going after keywords. On top of that, their article formatting and random bolding make me suspect that their content was written by AI/LLMs. Woodroar (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Leaning unreliable per Woodroar. Not seeing strong credentials and what content exists doesn't seem particularly high quality. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...Slant Magazine..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Slant Magazine covers various topics and has a dedicated video game section. They also have the usual About page and a staff list. Can they be considered reliable? Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This looks reliable. Plenty of use by others (Slant Magazine has examples). I checked the first few bylines in their games section; all also wrote for other publications. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Slant Magazine is a reliable source. It's fairly prominent in its niche, and their reviews often point out flaws that other reviewers gloss over. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliable per others. I've used it plenty of times before; they're a strong source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "IGC" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This website primarily does game and tech reviews. I believe this may be a situational source. I cannot find an editorial policy, but i did find a scoring policy which details how they conduct their reviews. They also accept freelance reviews, of which some are completely anonymous to my knowledge (such as this), which are almost certainly unreliable, although others (like ) are not. This might just be case by case basis issue, with some authors being more reliable than others. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I would consider this unreliable. As far as I can tell, the site owner has no credentials beyond running this site. And then there's this account, "Alison", which "is being used to post news by myself, and a few members of our team". Alison who? Again, no credentials. I checked their most recent blog and there's a sketchy link to a World of Warcraft boosting service. Accepting reviews from anyone and not being transparent about who wrote content, plus undisclosed advertising, that's all a quick fail in my book. Woodroar (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable, no real vetting of authors or editorial process. Here's a review , and a quote from it: "The review was written by me and edited by my partner." Here's another , with a "Bonus Opinion from IGC's Owner". Here's their about page: , where they explicitly mention seeking inexperienced volunteer writers. I see this as a blog written by amateur writers and overseen by an uncredentialed site owner. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "EarlyGame" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I'm considering using this lore analysis as a potential draft on Sparkle from Honkai: Star Rail. Since we last discussed EarlyGame, they appear to have posted an editorial policy, but neglect to mention whether any of their current contributors has any professional experience, which is why I'm a little hesitant to use it as a source without first discussing it here. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Good news is I think the staff on this authors list are real, not AI. Their content lead, Ignacio Weil, has also written for MSN. The articles EarlyGame publish are in a digestible format, I'm not really sure what they could add to an article that a more mainstream source couldn't in all honestly. I'm less concerned with their reliability and am instead questioning their usability. 11WB (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

MSN is an aggregator, that link is just aggregating an EarlyGame article. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

~ Facepalm ~ 11WB (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @A412, I've struck that part of my comment. Yahoo News is an aggregator, but also publishes their own reports. I assumed, after seeing MSN listed on their Muckrack, that MSN was the same... 11WB (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

A quick check shows they've only been cited 26 times in Wikipedia article space, so I think I'm probably correct with my usability concern. 11WB (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "GNN Gamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Bahamut/GNN [zh], although it does have a blog feature, has a page indicating that there is a process for editorial review prior to publication as an article. It was put up for discussion on the Chinese Wikipedia in 2019, and according to one editor who posted there who claims to have experience writing for them, they say Bahamut takes a few days to publish an accepted article submission, which indicates to me they take their editorial review process seriously. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 16:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought this is the third time it is brought up. It has already been included in the reliable source list iirc. MilkyDefer 17:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see it, or at least not the terms "Bahamut" or "GNN". It is included on the Chinese version of the list though: zh:PJ:VG/S, but not in English. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

When I first proposed inclusion I went out of my way to expand GNN into Gamer News Network and since then, nobody realize that it has already been discussed. MilkyDefer 17:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, therein lies the issue... I'll put in the abbreviation in parentheses. Thanks for clearing that up! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)