Submitted by -iaspostb□x

An encyclopedia is supposed to be truthful. No matter how digital or physical it is, facts have to be checked to ensure consistency with real-life expectations. If it is either ambiguous or unrealistic, then it will be questioned for further examination, either leading to acceptance or disapproval. The results become various; while some of them are being praised with ease if true, others are met with polarized opinions for conflicting reasons. This can also happen in a wiki like Wikipedia because of its open nature, as even though it stated itself to be a free encyclopedia, there are bound to be opponents who reject such status even if it's real or not. And this can exist in video game-related articles, too, as if one group finds something suspicious in an otherwise normal informational page pertaining to a new console. We Wikipedians could've blamed ourselves for the unnatural warfare if we agreed with our critics, but it wouldn't be easy.

It's clear that references fall into two categories: reliable sources and unreliable sources. That is because of not only how the editors of this website view things, but also because of how the course of this wiki's history was altered. Back in 2001, the wiki was relatively small, acted like a neutral encyclopedia, and had short articles with no bent towards inaccuracy. As it grew, more topics were brought into the table such as video games, and disagreements over neutral point of view (NPOV) became commonplace. The concepts of reliable and unreliable sources emerged out of this situation, and evolved over the years, either for the better or worse. More later events changed the perceptions of what it means to write a truth, so orders were enabled and conflicts arose. Some users moved out of Wikipedia because of various circumstances, including controversies surrounding mere revisions of certain statements of gaming-themed pages. Now we have many big articles with varying levels of neutrality, random levels of claims (either truths or lies), and at times unnecessary biases thrown into the text out of nowhere. Therefore it is crucial that only the truth in reliable sources is presented fairly, and not the opposite.

You can't present a work as about something that actually happened unless it realistically discusses true events, and if you fail, it turns into a hoax. If a solution to the issue is available, then it is de-hoaxed. Some fake sources are invented to make implausible pages about impossible computer games. When it is found out, the article is judged and is either rewritten or ceases to exist. Articles are meant to be written entirely neutral, in the way of fairly representing truth without confusion, and in the absence of bias and critiques. Writing an article from a point of view is vulnerable to outsiders' criticism, even if there is neutrality in the text, because they can spot inaccuracies and needless opinions in what is supposed to be a neutral text. We now know that in these current times, everyone is viewing your edits as either grounded on reality or very distortive, so it is important to write neutral truths.

In short, don't fake your work, and write an article about real things. The current environment of the game industry is so prone to disbelief that trusting a journal is hard when you have a bunch of critics. I think that, as of today, a reformation of the truth is needed for everyone.