User:Datumizer/Discussions/Aggregators
Aggregator usage[edit]
Here is a summation of past discussions on the topic of using aggregator scores on Wikipedia or in the {{Video game reviews}} template.
Things to consider[edit]
Arguments have been made for or against.
| Characteristic | Importance |
|---|---|
| Factual/statistical accuracy/NPOV |
Mid |
| Usefulness to the reader | Mid |
| "Reach"/popularity | High |
| Extra work involved for Wikipedia members |
Very high |
| Other Wikiprojects have policies limiting aggregator usage we can refer to |
Very high |
Chart[edit]
| GameRankings | Metacritic | OpenCritic | ... | MobyGames | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial | Yes | Yes | Yes | ... | Yes |
| Years active | 1999-2019 | 2001+ | 2015+ | ... | 1999+ |
| Years covered | ??? | ??? | ??? | ... | Any |
| Editorial policy | ??? | No | Yes | ... | ??? |
| Takes user submissions | No | No | Yes | ... | Yes |
| Reliable per VGRS | Yes | Yes | ??? | ... | No |
| Referenced a lot by press & developers |
Yes | Yes | ??? | ... | ??? |
| Complained about a lot by press & developers |
??? | Yes | ??? | ... | ??? |
| Owner posts comments on Wikipedia User pages |
No | No | Yes | ... | ??? |
| Alexa rank | 36,545 (April 23, 2019) |
1,362 (April 23, 2019) |
48,908 (May 11, 2021) |
... | 21,854 (April 23, 2019) |
Log[edit]
- Discussion #9 (2021)
- Discussion #8 (2017)
- Discussion #7 (2020)
- Discussion #6 (2015)
- Discussion #5 (2015)
- Discussion #4 (2014)
- Discussion #3 (2014)
- Discussion #2 (2009)
- Discussion #1 (2009)
- Discussion #0 (2008)
Discussion #8 was about 1) whether OpenCritic is reliable and 2) whether OpenCritic should be used on Wikipedia. There was consensus on 2) not to use it. However, most discussion on 1) was extremely evasive.
Discussion #6 was about removing GameRankings from the reviews template, and an RfC reached the conclusion that, "There is consensus for the change. The majority opinion is that GR is mainly useful for older games and it is mainly duplication in newer ones. I do not see support for removal everywhere, more of phasing it out on newer games. It was almost clear consensus that it was useful for older games, from both minority and majority opinions. Were that fits on a timeline though isnt clear." Users such as User:Czar denied this, claiming that "The consensus is to use GR only when it's better than nothing." The RfC closer User:AlbinoFerret clarified the issue, telling User:Czar that, "You cant pick and choose what part of a close best suits your position and ignore the rest. Take it as a whole, as the closer takes a look at the entire discussion it isnt based on the question itself for the most part, but the responses."
Discussion #3 was about removing GameRankings from the reviews template, and the consensus after an RfC was to keep it.
Discussion #2 was about removing all aggregators except Metacritic and GameRankings from the reviews template. Consensus was to go ahead and do so.
In Discussion #6 User:Czar made the claim that, "GR also uses far more unreliable sites, on the whole—having more reviews does not mean the metareview is more complete." He provided no backing evidence. However, here is one possible example:
Number of sources: 27 |
Number of sources: 15 |