On 5/3/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca>
No, that would be citing a _primary_ source,
which is entirely within
the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Indeed, in many cases the game
itself would probably be a lot easier to get ahold of for verification
than old issues of game magazines that might discuss it.
By that standard I could give you the instructions for doing various
chemical experiments (ones that don't appear in the lititure) as a
Not at all. I use that standard and I would not consider your example to
be a "primary source," so you're putting something else into the mix to
reach that conclusion not present in my standard. Perhaps I'm not
explaining it clearly or we have a basic difference in underlying
IMO the key difference between the two is that a computer game is a work
of "literature" (in a broad sense) whereas a pile of chemicals is not.
You "read" a game by playing it but you don't "read" a pile of
by combining them in various predefined ways.