Talk:Kotaku

https://medium.com/@aquapendulum/reality-check-supplement-reading-for-historyofgamergate-com-graysons-relationships-308dc510c680 We should look over this and incorporate some of it, Its some relationship CoIs outside of the initial drama --SoggyKnees (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC) [incorrect date/time, just cleaning up now that I know the ropes]
 * Yes. In fact, I'll try to bring aquapendulum in as an editor. - Kawaiisenpai

=Embargo=

Kotaku just talked about their stance on AAA post-release embargos. This is actually a nice, fairly strong stance on a part of ethics corruption thats not normally seen by the end-user, and should be added to the wiki https://archive.today/oa0Vv --SoggyKnees (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

= New Kotaku Articles = Target's Grand Theft Auto V Ban Leaves Us With No-One To Blame, Mark Serrels,4 Dec 2014

Another Stupid Australian Retailer Has Pulled GTA V, Luke Plunkett

Kmart Has Now Pulled Grand Theft Auto V In Australia, Mark Serrels,4 Dec 2014

- CrazedMan 4/12/2014

I Was Chris Benoit: Playing A Video Game As A Real-Life Murderer, Stephen Totilo, 12 December 2014

- CrazedMan (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Controversial Shooting Game Pulled From Steam Greenlight, Nathan Grayson, 15 December 2014

[https://archive.today/oXXjL Sex Game Pulled From Steam Greenlight. You Can Guess Why. [UPDATE]], Stephen Totilo

- CrazedMan (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Feministing: Debunking The Argument Against GTA IV, Leigh Alexander, 6/02/08 12:00 PM

- CrazedMan (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Our 2014 Gamers of the Year: You!, Stephen Totilo, 23 December 2014 12:50 PM

- CrazedMan (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Objectivity - Jason Schreier

- CrazedMan (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

= Misc =

Hypocrisy of Kotaku - https://i.imgur.com/IDbt56u.png

Kotaku published a fake story
https://archive.today/kCwt3 http://i.imgur.com/iLNDWSf.png

"GTA taught me how to drive"

here is the archive for the version with the update in case it is of some use https://archive.today/FeqWu -CrazedMan 5/12/2014

dumping of kotaku stuff
The Contemptible Games Journalist: Why So Many People Don’t Trust The Gaming Press (And Why They’re Sometimes Wrong)

- CrazedMan (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku used Images in an Article without permission of Designer

- CrazedMan (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Dubiousness
I repeat: Dubiousness. Why do I repeat it? Because it's what I'm feeling right now.

Now, mistake me not: I support Gamergate. I am not an SJW. In fact, I've actively attempted to rectify the atrocities currently on display over at the GG Wikipedia article. I come with no malign intent, nor am I dubious of our mission. What I am dubious of is our dedication.

What engendered this sentiment, you inquire? Naught but a brief perusal of this article, and the accompanying dismal fucking contraventions contained therein.

Contraventions against what?

Generally speaking, it's scrupulous to maintain a....shall we say, encyclopedic tone whilst editing an article on a Wiki. It conveys an ambiance of fairness, impartiality, and, most important of all, professionalism. Which is why, when I read things like "Then Why Temkin's and Wardell's situations, one unrelated to the video game industry and other more focused on the software industry, newsworthy for Kotaku?", my nose tends to upturn in unbridled disgust.

Listen, I'm all for wit, cleverness, and attention to subtext, but this?

Are any among you honestly convinced that this works in favor of this article? Nay--this site as a whole?

This isn't a persuasive essay. It's a Wiki page. You do not address the reader. You do not pitch questions to the reader. Indeed, it is your solemn duty as an editor to bolster that fourth wall with as much indifference to the recipients of it as you possibly can. I cherish the rhetorical essay, sure, but this simply is not the right context for that!

You needn't goad the reader to stumble into your briar patch of evidence. You needn't elucidate the implications of it for them, like some patronizing elder. Present the evidence in as comprehensive and as cogent a fashion as possible, and let them come to their own conclusions. With the leaning tower of indictment that is the evidence we have thus far amassed, the truth should be self-evident to even the thickest of readers. Don't inject the article with even the faintest hint of persuasion--it's a ready vector by which our adversaries can accuse us of 'bias'.

I don't remonstrate you all out of pure acrimony--I recognize the good intent behind these actions. They remain misguided, however. I'm fully aware of how enthused we all are at the opportunity to propound the truth, but we must do so in a manner that comports admirably. As one with a flair for the extravagant, this may seem priggish of me, but the embellishments such as the one displayed above are abject superfluities. Furthermore, they aren't even grammatically correct. Commas aren't inserted. Names aren't capitalized. It's a copyediting nightmare. Once again, I call into question your dedication. Do you truly wish to rectify the turpitude that is the Video Game Journalism industry, or do you wish to futilely altercate with it until the entire industry goes tits-up? Because right now, if this were a bulwark, it would be made of Swiss cheese. And our opponents? They are voracious, vindictive rats, replete with gnawing teeth and slashing claws. One small hole in our barrier is all they need to inject their briny blend of pretentious horseshit into the public's view of GG.

That is all. Berke Stavoy (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Small ideas delivered in big, big words. It's too informal. Got it. A formal tone is generally preferable, but the active editors are more interested in other areas right now. I'll fix it later. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote this entry some months ago, I'm a ESL so sorry if my english is phrase in a funny way. It was one of the first ones in the wiki at a time when the tone of the wiki would have wasn't still clear, so the direction and structure of this entry is quite different from the later ones, I'm not saying this to excuse it but to give a explanation of why it was made this way. Thanks for pointing this out.


 * btw, plz try to be more concise when presenting your point of view. I think you could have written all that in 3 paragraphs ;).Ratalada (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Shit man I did it in 3 words. Psycho Robot (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have this way with circumlocution. Berke Stavoy (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions
Not questions of my own, no. This piece is written as an address to the questions risen by the implications of the piece the preceded it. More specifically, If you're willing, I wish to sermonize a bit more regarding tone.

Seeing as how this is a relatively nascent Wiki, we've yet to establish edicts decreeing a universal tone to which all articles must conform. Given that this is a Wiki, you would belief that the 'encyclopedic' tone adopted by sites such as Wikipedia itself would be implicit in the absence of a mandated style. However, this is not invariably the case:

The slavering troglodytes over at Encylopaedia Dramatica, for example, abandon all pretense of encyclopedic underpinnings. Instead, they employ an IBM Selectric typewriter under the tutelage of a dyslexic baboon on a double espresso to the task of editing their articles. The one-note topical caricatures invariably pinched out in the aftermath are then purported to be 'satirical'.

Another prominent example would be the pretentious ideologues over at RationalWiki. You know, the atheism 'plus' crowd. They regularly inject their atheistic articles with their own unique variety of rebellious heresy in order to appear sufficiently edgy to all the darkest and most disaffected elements of the local junior high school. This, to them, is known as 'missionality'.

To temper this cynicism for a moment, not all Wikis that utilize unconventional tones are irredeemable abortions. It's a style that can be executed with profound aplomb, but it requires a careful and practiced touch. I know we're all eager, but what requires a scalpel cannot be done with a jackhammer. Furthermore, the encyclopedic tone, in the eyes of many, is more credible--however, by adopting this, we may in fact be wielding a double-edged sword. One the one hand, if we choose the encyclopedic tone, our detractors shall constantly accuse of crouching behind factual pretense. Attempts to demean our credibility by pointing out oversights would exponentiate. On the other hand, if we were to instead elect to edit in the evidently-biased tone, our detractors shall not consider us credible, calling us propagandists, libelists, and conmen.

Our detractors suck, don't they?

In either case, however, a standard of formality must be established. Our ever-so-cunning opponents may utilize the ultimately superficial mistakes we make in our prose and extrapolate a sentiment of universal incredulity towards the site from them. That, in and of itself, is not an ominous threat. What is an ominous threat, however, is the prospect of them propounding their believes to the general public. Remember, we're a consumer revolt. The enemy has far more resources than we do. They have established communications with established audiences, who regularly support their content simply because they made it. Our underdog status is undeniable. With this in mind, just how imperative it is that we be unequivocal in regards to our tone should come into sharper focus. Thus, I advise that we convene in order to debate the merits and shortcomings of each avenue. Soon, however, we must decide. If this site is to reach prominence before it resolves this matter, it shall be lambasted by the SJWs. We cannot allow this to occur.

Furthermore, for a piece entitled 'questions', this had very few actual questions--this is more of an address to said questions, which were more or less tacit. Berke Stavoy (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Journalistic Inconsistencies?
[Kotaku has taken part in many questionable actions, including, but categorically not limited to: Bias, clickbait, journalistic inconsistencies,..]

I understand that 'journalistic inconsistencies' means the site has contradicted itself at one or more points in time. I don't see any examples of that in the article. Are the examples of that omitted? Should this part be removed? --141.101.88.165 10:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)