On 04/05/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
There are articles that cite books which would
probably take way more
effort for me to track down than it would for me to play 50 levels of
BlueMonsterKilla without taking a hit, though, so I still don't think
one should reject a reference purely on the basis of how easy it is to
verify (provided it's at least _possible_). Though if a walkthrough were
indeed available I agree that it would be a nicer thing to reference.
But this is a bit beside the point. We have lots of information in
Wikipedia verifiable by first persons experience - talk about the
architecture of a building, and anyone who visits it can probably
verify it. But we don't require "verifiable information" as much as we
require "verifiable sources" who have already stated the information.
In other words, the game may contain some facts, but it doesn't
contain a statement or an interpretation of those facts. That's why
it's inappropriate to "cite" directly. If the packaging of the game
contained a summary of the levels or the characters or something, that
might be different.
Steve