The freedom of speech... doesn't exist

[Slugma128]

This is mainly about Wikipedia, but I'm sure it applies to other things as well. There's one thing that truly disgusts me about Wikipedia. You know how they always says you need to have a source, and that everything must be facts? Well...

The funny thing is that you can link to journalists articles and call it a fact. For example, you can link to a review and call it a fact. You can even link to individual quotes from journalists about a certain character and call it a fact. The funny thing? They're just journalist's opinions. But somehow, they're worth more than mine and yours.

There are many links to IGN on Wikipedia. They include quotes like "This game was very bad" from IGN, which is a pure opinion and has nothing to do with facts. But because it's a journalist, his opinion is considered, more or less, a fact.

This also stays true when you talk to people on message boards. These journalists opinions are always worth more than my opinion, or your opinion, because they are "professional". Let me just ask you, how can you have a professional opinion? Sure, how you express it matters, but the opinion itself can never be professional. That would be the same as saying his or her opinion is worth more than mine.

But Wikipedia and many others still think this is the case. As soon as the opinion comes from someone in the industry, that opinion all of sudden becomes a fact. It disgusts me to no end, and people don't even seem to be aware of it.

 

[NixxxoN]

Wkipedia is for sure not the best place to put opinions in, just facts there.

 

[Slugma128]

Wkipedia is for sure not the best place to put opinions in, just facts there.

Except it's far from just facts there. There's a lot of journalist's opinions scattered everywhere.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I'll be keeping a close eye on this thread...

And dude, there's a difference between the opinion of a regular person and a journalist or industry professional, who probably have more knowledge and experience with the topic. Certain opinions are worth more in different situations.

Also, in most cases, freedom of speech doesn't exist. You're only protected from the government violating your right to free speech, not anything else (this is assuming you live in America).

 

[Slugma128]

I'll be keeping a close eye on this thread...

And dude, there's a difference between the opinion of a regular person and a journalist or industry professional, who probably have more knowledge and experience with the topic. Certain opinions are worth more in different situations.

Also, in most cases, freedom of speech doesn't exist. You're only protected from the government violating your right to free speech, not anything else (this is assuming you live in America).

OK, so you believe that if I think Game A is crap, and IGN think Game A is wonderful, their opinion is worth more than mine? Opinions is not about knowledge, it's about taste.

I live in Europe, so I don't really know what you're talking about...

And BTW, didn't you have better things to do than to follow individual posts in a topic like this?

 

[NixxxoN]

IGN or other videogame site reviews are definitely more trustworthy than just a random gamer's opinion... They are professionals who have experience on it and they can compare with a lot of other games they've seen. Still, not a fact for sure. There will always be all different sorts of tastes.

BTW, there's a difference between PUBLIC opinions and CRITIC's opinions. Critics = Pros (who know about it) Public = Random people

 

[Slugma128]

IGN or other videogame site reviews are definitely more trustworthy than just a random gamer's opinion... They are professionals who have experience on it and they can compare with a lot of other games they've seen. Still, not a fact for sure. There will always be all different sorts of tastes.

BTW, there's a difference between PUBLIC opinions and CRITIC's opinions. Critics = Pros (who know about it) Public = Random people

Oh boy. The only thing they're professionals in is the PRESENTATION. There can never ever be a professional opinion. It's a matter of taste and nothing else. But then you can present it in a professional way. But that's another topic.

Imagine this scenario:

Me and Craig from IGN are at your house. We're playing Mega Man III for the Virtual Console.

Me: "This game is boring, I don't like it"
Craig: "This is a great classic, one of Mega Man's best, and should be owned by any true gamer"

Who is right? The answer is no one. It's two different opinions, but Craig's opinion is presented more professionally.

 

[Pink Reaper]

No, in that particular instance you are wrong. Megaman 3 is in fact amazing. This is a well known and scientifically provable fact.

Also, the fact that freedom of speech is actually suppressed in schools, along with other more basic constitutional rights and yet you seem to think Wikipedia is where the big problem is leads me to believe that you recently came across something you didnt agree with on Wikipedia and felt the need to ***** about it. This thread does not need to exist.

 

[Slugma128]

No, in that particular instance you are wrong. Megaman 3 is in fact amazing. This is a well known and scientifically provable fact.

Also, the fact that freedom of speech is actually suppressed in schools, along with other more basic constitutional rights and yet you seem to think Wikipedia is where the big problem is leads me to believe that you recently came across something you didnt agree with on Wikipedia and felt the need to ***** about it. This thread does not need to exist.

LOL. I said Wikipedia was one example.

 

[NixxxoN]

Me: "This game is boring, I don't like it"
Craig: "This is a great classic, one of Mega Man's best, and should be owned by any true gamer"

Its not about right or wrong opinions its about pro opinions or n00b opinions to say it in some way. Professional reviewers will never say "boring i dont like it" they will analise it and in case of megaman 3, they should have great experience in megaman games, and they will make a complete explaination of their opinions and what they think and compare it to the other megaman games.

 

[Slugma128]

Its not about right or wrong opinions its about pro opinions or n00b opinions to say it in some way. Professional reviewers will never say "boring i dont like it" they will analise it and in case of megaman 3, they should have great experience in megaman games, and they will make a complete explaination of their opinions and what they think and compare it to the other megaman games.

I fully agree, but no matter how well explained something is... it's still an opinion. It's not worth more than yours or mine, and it's not fact in any way.

As a matter of fact, journalists often use this to present their own opinions as "laws" or "facts". They write the review in such a way as "this is how it is".

And the worst thing is, people buy it.

 

[NixxxoN]

I fully agree, but no matter how well explained something is... it's still an opinion. It's not worth more than yours or mine, and it's not fact in any way.

As a matter of fact, journalists often use this to present their own opinions as "laws" or "facts". They write the review in such a way as "this is how it is".

And the worst thing is, people buy it.

Nobody said people believes all the stuff they write, I personally think that mixing up CRITICS and PUBLIC opinions is the best way to go.
But it is a FACT that most PRO reviews are good and a lot of RANDOM reviews are trash like "omg it sux boring" or "that movie is so kool man its full of hot girlz" and stuff
Sites like FilmAffinity.com (movies) have both and its great to read them all a bit

 

[Jim Morrison]

I have yet to see a journalist try to sell their opinion as a fact. Just because they don't state "Hey this is my opinion, don't take it for granted, form your own on it" doesn't mean they want you to take it as a fact.

 

[Mic_128]

Oh boy. The only thing they're professionals in is the PRESENTATION. There can never ever be a professional opinion.

Not true. There are people in many fields, politics for example, where their job is basically observing and studying politicians, and as that's their job, when asked about it, they give a professional opinion, which is worth a lot more than a random person asked on the street.

LOL. I said Wikipedia was one example.

Gee now, I wonder what other example you might possibly be thinking about.

 

[Tacel]

No, in that particular instance you are wrong. Megaman 3 is in fact amazing. This is a well known and scientifically provable fact.

No. Just because many people have the same opinion on something doesn't mean that that opinion is a fact.
For example, many Zelda fans think that Ocarina of Time is the greatest Zelda game ever made (I am included). Some other people think that Majora's Mask is the greatest, but that doesn't mean I should tell them, "LOL no ur wrung cuz liek hundredz ov peeple disagree so ur wrung! Think othurwize! OoT is best!"
That's just stupid. People have opinions. Respect that. UNLESS a person hasn't played Ocarina of Time or hasn't played it much at all and calls it crap. That person doesn't have enough experience with the game to have an actual opinion on it. "Don't judge a book by it's cover."

- - - - -

(Most) Critics don't actually try to convince you that their opinion is a fact. Their just giving out their opinion. You don't have to agree. It's just so that you can get an opinion of something before you see/play it (depends what it is). Anybody can be a critic.

 

[Luigitoilet]

No. Just because many people have the same opinion on something doesn't mean that that opinion is a fact.
For example, many Zelda fans think that Ocarina of Time is the greatest Zelda game ever made (I am included). Some other people think that Majora's Mask is the greatest, but that doesn't mean I should tell them, "LOL no ur wrung cuz liek hundredz ov peeple disagree so ur wrung! Think othurwize! OoT is best!"
That's just stupid. People have opinions. Respect that. UNLESS a person hasn't played Ocarina of Time or hasn't played it much at all and calls it crap. That person doesn't have enough experience with the game to have an actual opinion on it. "Don't judge a book by it's cover."

- - - - -

(Most) Critics don't actually try to convince you that their opinion is a fact. Their just giving out their opinion. You don't have to agree. It's just so that you can get an opinion of something before you see/play it (depends what it is). Anybody can be a critic.

dude you're quoting a joke post

 

[Djent]

The way I see it, not all opinions are equal. Opinions derive their values from facts, and while there certainly is a "z-factor" ("taste," if you will), I still believe that it is possible to assert that some opinion is more qualified than another.

However, being a "journalist" doesn't make one's opinion immune from criticism. While being an expert in your field increases the probability that you know what you're talking about, it is by no means a guarantee. If a layman puts a similar amount of time into studying a particular field as a journalist, his opinion can be just as qualified. You can really only judge on a case per case basis, but the probability still lies in favor of the expert.

As far as Wikipedia goes, why complain about bias there? Of course there will be some bias, seeing as that any schmuck can edit the **** thing. If it really bothers you that much, why waste your time complaining here? Just fix it and give your reasoning, and your edit just might stick.

 

[Tacel]

dude you're quoting a joke post

I thought so.
But it still goes along with the discussion.

 

[GoldShadow]

But Wikipedia and many others still think this is the case. As soon as the opinion comes from someone in the industry, that opinion all of sudden becomes a fact. It disgusts me to no end, and people don't even seem to be aware of it.

I'm not sure I understand. Can you link us to an example?

I've never read a decent Wikipedia article that purports opinion to be fact.

Are you referring to things like "Critical reception" or "reviews"? The whole point of such sections in an article is to show what critics thought of a game. This is not Wikipedia trying to show a journalist's opinion as "fact". It's Wikipedia showing you the fact that some journalist or reviewer had a high opinion of the game. That's the whole point of such a section.

If you see something like "The game received much critical acclaim, with IGN giving it an 8.0 out of 10 [3]," then that's not Wikipedia trying to say the game was great and pass it off as fact. That's Wikipedia saying that major reviewers and critics believed the game was great, and that there's a link to it at the end in the references section where you can read the original review if you'd like.

Is that the mixup that's occurred here? Or do you have an actual example of Wikipedia saying "This game was great [3]" or something like that?

 

[RuNNing Riot]

, and that everything must be facts?

Where did you hear this? I've never read anything in Wikipedian policy saying that everything in it must be true. At best, the subjective text is with quote marks, showing it's only what someone else thinks and is not a definitive fact.

Plus, giving something a superscript linking it to an article isn't supposed to mean what's said within is true and factual, it's just there to state "this is what was said, and here's where I found out about it." It's perfectly fine to say that IGN gave something a positive response, because that IS true - they did say it, and that's where the source comes in.

Other than that, I think you've got the problem GoldShadow just mentioned.

 

[Zook]

OP, you're taking quotes out of context. Wikipedia begins every 'reception' section under a video game article with something like "So and so game has earned generally positive/negative mixed reviews." Later on, they may something like "IGN thought so and so game was great," but they never just put that.

The reception sections would be a lot less interesting/readable if you had to go through a thousand "John thought this game sucked; Jane thought this game was great."

ferdom don exits

 

[metalmonstar]

Lol at a thread complaining about the critical reception section of some wikipedia articles.

Sometimes you quote something because the author who wrote it has a high degree of credibility and authority on the subject not necessarily because it is right or wrong.

I believe in a large part that free speech isn't free. There are less than 10 big media companies that own the vast majority of everything you see, hear, or read. Well what about the internet? Well they have stakes there too. Sure on the internet you have as an individual have the right to say and present whatever you want. However if it becomes popular it becomes profitable. If it becomes profitable then they want it. Humans have a price and can easily be bought out. Then free speech goes out the window.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

You've misinterpreted free speech. In some places, you can get arrested for saying things. Not in the U.S.

 

[Proud_Smash_N00b]

Miller v. California?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I fully agree, but no matter how well explained something is... it's still an opinion. It's not worth more than yours or mine, and it's not fact in any way. As a matter of fact, journalists often use this to present their own opinions as "laws" or "facts". They write the review in such a way as "this is how it is". And the worst thing is, people buy it.

Even though factually substantiated opinions and capricious opinions are both "opinions," it is wrong to assume that all opinions are equal. An opinion backed by facts contains integrity and an attempt by the writer to look at cold-hard objective facts in relativity to their own subjective thought process. In a given game magazine, the reviewer will often attribute their criticism to a specific aspect of the game.

For example, in Jeff Gerstmann's criticism of Kane and Lynch, he attributes bad mechanics to the difficulty of the third person character to hug walls in order to dodge lethal bullets. Attributing it to a specific aspect of the game reinforces his point as such a feature objectively exists and is up to personal interpretation whether or not such game-play elements should make or break a game. The fact that the author mentions it gives him a degree of integrity as he is willing to have people follow his line of logic and opens himself up to various lines of criticism.

These critics should not be respected because they get paid to write for a magazine. It just happens that money is often a unifying incentive for individuals to find objective elements and form rational opinions when they are asked to state how they feel about a given subject. Ignoring the facts indicates a lack of integrity in the sense that the writer has not attempted to consider objective elements. At its most rudimentary level, this results in comments that are read as, "this game sucks" or "this game was cool." If I have my own strong feelings about the game, such opinions are not going to sway me or make me reconsider my stance because it offers nothing substantial in its delivery.

Note: Jeff Gerstmann was fired from GameSpot magazine for giving Kane and Lynch a below average score in his review. The editorial magazine was receiving endorsements from Eidos Interactive in order to advertise the game all over its website. The scalding review didn't touch very well with the editorial magazine and Jeff was sent home. Therefore, there is some credence to the idea that not all opinions should be taken at face value. Yet it doesn't lend itself to the notion that all opinions are equal. Such a sweeping generalization about mankind's collective thought process needs to be kept in check.

 

[Pluvia]

The OP has a point. If I was to read reviews for GTA4 I'd be lead to believe that it's the best game since OoT (seriously, IGN said that). Whereas popular opinion with the general public disagrees with that.

They'll highlight how something has recieved good reviews from the press but wont highlight that the public disagrees with it, even if there's a players rating section from the same website that reviewed it.

 

[Pikaville]

The Majoras mask vs Ocarina debate will rage on till the end of time.

I believe they are equally good with Majoras being slightly harder to get 100% completion in.(Which I love doing in games) and of course being able to control 4 styles of characters.

Now back to the true topic.

You can be arrested/fined over here for slandering/demeaning another religion publicly.

Oh yeah and it was only re-enforced recently after being forgotten about for decades.

Money is what makes some peoples opinions seem greater than others.

 

[Chronodiver Lokii]

Well...freedom of speech only applies to government related things anyway.

You can't just say 'WELL I HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH' to someone.
The amendment applies to protections and freedoms against the government.

 

[Pluvia]

No not Majoras Mask, Grand Theft Auto 4.

 

[Pikaville]

I know but TAL was talking about OoT vs Majoras mask before.

GTA4 being the best game since OoT is laughable......and wrong.

/controversy

 

[PolarBear]

All of the teachers and professors I know make it a point that Wikipedia is not a professional source. It's so important to do research into other people's research because a lot of times "professional" sources will make a general statement and then support it by claims disguised in smoke and mirrors.

 

[Cyn]

Is the "freedom of speech doesn't exist" kind of like "the mob doesn't exist" but it really does?

 

[Zook]

Whenever I see this thread, all I can think of is that Neutral Milk Hotel song, 'My Dream Girl Don't Exist.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWNT11IqSXM

"My freedom don't exiiiiist."

 

[Jonas]

Speaking of video game quality, Wikipedia never says whether video games are good or bad. It says whether they are well received or poorly received by video game journalists. This is fact, not opinion.