Frequently asked questions Q1: Why isn't there a reception section?
A1: This is a legal case with factual information, not a product review. We are interested in the actual dispute and its impact on the industry, instead of the subjective reactions of video game commentators. The article is centered on the ruling of Judge
Saundra Brown Armstrong, and the facts required to understand this dispute and its implications. Q2: Why don't we include more press releases, announcements, and forum posts to see what the parties were thinking?
A2: The parties' public comments about the lawsuit are the furthest thing from
neutral and should be used sparingly. As a rule of thumb, summarize what the parties did more than what the parties said: briefly summarize the parties activities and main legal arguments in the filings, but avoid
undue weight on public statements that are made with the intention of swaying their fan communities. Certain public announcements prior to the legal dispute (starting Fall 2017) are less likely to be intentionally misleading, and are useful to show how the parties understood their rights before emotions were heightened by the lawsuit. Q3: Are references to the legal filings more
reliable and
neutral than references to comments from the parties?
A3: The legal arguments of the parties are essential to understanding this dispute, and a brief summary is required to give context to the reader. Keep in mind that lawyers are held accountable for false or frivolous claims, facing penalties or even disbarment. This makes summaries of the filings more reliable than other public announcements, as publicity campaigns have no such accountability. A4: Most journalists are not legal experts, and that includes video game journalists. Secondary sources like
Ars Technica,
Polygon and
Rock Paper Shotgun that analyze the parties' legal filings are considered more reliable, as they are exercising more thoroughness and fact-checking, and referring to arguments that are accountable in a court of law. Other sources that refer only to press releases or web announcements are at high risk of repeating misleading, non-neutral information. |
![]() | A fact from Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 January 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
14:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace Created by
Jorahm (
talk) and modified by
DocFreeman24 (
talk). Nominated by
Shooterwalker (
talk) at
23:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC).
Article was nominated 8-9 days after creation, but the primary author (
Jorahm) is a new contributor to Wikipedia, therefore I agree that the deadline should be waived per
WP:IAR. Article is long, and no copyright or paraphrasing issues detected. QPQ not required because the nominator (
Shooterwalker) has fewer than 5 credits.
The hook states that the trademarks were "in the names of aliens from the game Star Control". Would it be more accurate to say "alien races" instead? Also, where is this supported in the source? Polygon states that the trademarks included ones for The Ur-Quan Masters, Star Control, and "Yehat". But from that list, "Yehat" appears to be the only one concerning an alien race. Could you please clarify? Edge3 ( talk) 19:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)