User talk:Charlie Wiederhold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] DNF

See Bulletinboards, wikis, and posts to Usenet. For all we know it might be an imposter. GameSpot at least stands as more reliable, because they're contacting the 3D Realms developers themselves to verify if they actually wrote this-and-this on Shacknews or not. I have tried to edit it to be more accurate, though. Hbdragon88 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I always like to use secondary sources. WP:NOR says this: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. If GS hadn't picked up on that, we could use Broussard's post as the one and only primary source, but GS does have it. WP:RS notes this: if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so, which is GameSpot. We are assuming that they independently checked out the claim, although like you said they did not receive any confirmation.

I reread the GS article and Broussard's post. Is the error that GS makes is assuming that Broussard's quote meant that it was almost done? Would be more factually accurate to say, "GameSpot speculated that the game is almost done?" Arrrghh. Why can't they just confirm anything via a press release or something instead of posting on message boards? The in-game shot was nice, as GS does report (very nicely) that Broussard confirmed that he posted the message. However, I have no predjuice to simply referencing the Shacknews article itself and dropping the GS reference. Hbdragon88 23:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)