User talk:Eloipfeiffer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Eloipfeiffer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
ENeville 00:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metacritic

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Just because the site has a review of a game does not mean it should be linked.--Drat (Talk) 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is best to cite the reviews in the articles, as opposed to merely adding the reviews everywhere. Besides that, it may be viewed as a conflict of interest, as a review of your contributions show them to be solely concerned with adding links to your site. In a few situations, these links have been added to the top of the link section, and sometimes in the references section of an article; see items 3 and 5 here.--Drat (Talk) 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood - EP

Upon viewing your site, I note that you do not actually critically review these products and productions, but instead provide summaries of various reviews, making it unsuitable for citing, as the individual reviews themselves would have to be cited where they are used as sources in the article.--Drat (Talk) 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But the Metascores & edited descriptions, along with the release and background information is all created by the Metacritic staff. I don't see how this is different than an IMDb type of page. Any assistance would be appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eloipfeiffer (talk • contribs).

A check of all the links you have added since registration (yes, I checked all 150+ of them) showed release details little more that what is already available in the article (and trivial anyway), while the descriptions are either taken from the developer/publisher, or are trivial and/or plot summary and not really useful for an articlel; plot summary can be sourced from the work itself, and should not the focus of a truly encyclopedic article anyway. As for the metascores, they are, quoting from the site itself "a weighted average of all of the scores assigned by individual critics to that movie, game, book or album". You jave often added these links to indirectly related pages, such as linking reviews of a book in the article on the author. Regarding links like IMDB, those have been used for years as they often have a lot more than just simple release info (though some just link them regardless of worth). Besides that, just because other links are present doesn't necessitate that yours should too. As far as I know, there is also not the potential conflict of interest situation I described before.--Drat (Talk) 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. OK, sounds like you just want nothing to do with Metacritic on Wikipedia. I rather enjoyed participating in this project. I thought I was adding the to overall experience of your users, but I guess I was wrong. I'll avoid contributing to your community in the fututre. Best, EP

Hey, I didn't mean any offence.--Drat (Talk) 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, none taken. I was just a little surprised that you'd come down so hard on a site like Metacritic which so generously links out to hundreds and hundreds of other sites free of charge. We're solid netizens, yet you're so exacting when I post a few links on your site. Oh well. Like I said, I'll not run afoul of your rules. I'm just a little bummed. I had a different image of what you guys were about. But it's not your fault.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eloipfeiffer (talk • contribs).

The generosity or not of linking so many sites does not enter into it. You are free to cite the reviews your site links to, but do it with those reviews, not the summaries you provide. The core problem is that while your site does bring together many resources, it does not really provide a unique, citable resource in and of itself. And you've posted more than just a "few links".--Drat (Talk) 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right in the sense that we provide summaries. But there's value in that. For example, Entertainment Weekly regularly cites our scores in their weekly box office roundup. In the following article, they discuss the poor reviews that Night in the Museum has gotten from the top industry critics - specifically, those critics tracked by Metacritic. And they cite our page (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20010080,00.html) and Metascore of 44 out of 100. There is value in that composite number. And by excluding references to our pages because you argue there is no value in our numbers is simply your opinion - and shouldn't be enough to exclude us from Wikipedia entirely. Sure, EW could list the 41 reviews that we used to come up with our composite score, but that Metascore is becoming an industry standard, and it has value in and of itself. Just wanted to make that clear. But again, if you feel the way you do, I won't screw with your website. If, on the other hand, you'd allow me to perhaps submit a handful (4 or 5) links a month to just the most significant titles, I'd be more than satisfied with that. If you'd rather I didn't, I won't.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eloipfeiffer (talk • contribs).

It's not "my" website nor that of any one editor. I've asked another user to add his opinions here, but he has been busy lately, so I don't know when he will reply. And by the way, please sign your messages with four tildes like this: ~~~~.--Drat (Talk) 06:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do (I'm rather new to this whole html thing, but I'll try to see how you did it. (and I do appreciate your civility) ~~~~.--Eloipfeiffer (Talk) 06:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you don't need the nowiki tag. That's just to prevent the tildes becoming my sig. I should have noted that. You got the sig code right anyway.--Drat (Talk) 07:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello; I've been asked by Drat to provide my opinion on the situation. The only case where I've seen that Metacritic.com can be useful is as a way to back up a sentence that summarizes general opinion on a particular work. However, it's not the only way to source that, so adding links everywhere is not the best idea. As a note, I'm not entirely familiar with how the Metacritic scores work; if they change over time, as later reviews are accounted for, then that makes the score very difficult to verify over time, which would make a bad source to cite. If the scores are static, then they're more usable, but subject to the consensus of interested editors.

In any case, links definitely should not be added to articles about the creators, but only about the works themselves. Links to the site might be useful in the external links section, but I would say only if the article does not yet have a developed section discussing critical reception. The idea is that, if there is such a section, it should already be citing opinions in weight representative to their overall prevalence in reliable sources.

So, in summary, only if the scores are static (or otherwise verifiable as of a particular date), then they're usable, but in limited circumstances. As with many things, links are added on an article-by-article basis, but it's always best to cite individual reviews, or, in cases where they exist, secondary sources that reliably summarize opinions in prose. In accordance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, I would strongly recommend that you not add the links to articles yourself. but instead propose additions on talk pages, so that other interested editors of the relevant articles can judge whether the link and or citation of the Metacritic score fits. Again, though, if the score changes over time, that makes it very difficult to use as a proper source.

I hope that this makes some sense. Let me know if you'd like me to explain anything further. Happy editing. — TKD::Talk 14:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

TKD, thanks for taking the time to weigh in. In short, yes, the Metascores do actually change as reviews are added to our database, so I'd be reluctant to cite a Metascore that would require updating & maintenance. I agree with your viewpoint that a Metacritic link should only be included in the External Links section of a specific product (not the "artist" page in the case of books or musicians) and only when the there is not an established body of primary review sources cited. That makes sense to me. And sure, regarding the conflict of interest rules, it would be preferable that I not do such editing myself. In fact, I've seen MANY references & links to Metacritic throughout Wikipedia, and only a relative small amount of them (those you can see in "my contributions") came from me. But I respect your & DAT's criticism of my bulk submission, and I won't continue to do that. I'll only participate under the narrow circumstances you recommend. Eloipfeiffer (talk