Forums > MobyGames > Moby/Wiki?
Marker (557) on 2/12/2014 8:00 PM · Permalink · Report
Is it okay to use Mobygames reference material, specifically game package images on your site, in Wikipedia applications? In trying to get record visuals of the art I did for Tetris, Tengen's famously aborted game package into the Wiki pages about those games, I tried to insert my own package photography.
Wiki (understandably) queried me for licensing information. When I referred them to the Mobygame image ( only for the licensing information) they okayed it, and I expected they would then use my supplied image.
The only one they would accept was the Mobygames image, which of course is watermarked.
I ran into the same issue with trying to place the Data East Bad Dudes image.
No visual record of either of these game packages otherwise appears on Wikipedia.
I left the Tetris image in place, but I will take it down immediately if this is contrary to Mobygames policy.
It seemed to me to be in line with the number of times Mobygames is held out by Wikipedia as strong and independent verification of all sorts of retro video game information.
Rola (8483) on 2/12/2014 8:42 PM · Permalink · Report
Really? I thought Wikipedia hates us.
Marker (557) on 2/13/2014 12:13 AM · Permalink · Report
Don't think so Rola…I see numerous footnote markers quoting MG as source material in many cases relative to games and game history.
They have an entire protocol for using copyright image material as long as its placed in low resolution, and attributed. That's why there are some games shown. But for some reason, they won't accept a game package image from me. I have to admit that their process is a back breaker. There may be a hoop I don't know how to jump through yet.
Rola (8483) on 2/13/2014 12:29 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marker wrote--]I see numerous footnote markers quoting MG [/Q --end Marker wrote--] True. Search Wikipedia for "mobygames" and you'll get thousands of results.
Yet on the other hand, dozens upon dozens of links get deleted according to their strict policy.
And not just those submitted by yours truly.
My linking template was recently marked for deletion.
Get yourself a coffee, sit back and read their talk page (linked somewhere in that thread above) with the rant "why not to link to MobyGames".
Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 2/13/2014 2:27 AM · Permalink · Report
The high and low, I imagine, is that they consider themselves to be the gatekeepers of what is "notable" (game titles and release years) vs. what we consider to be notable which they won't entertain supporting (credits, screenshots, etc.) ... and that our attempts to provide interested parties with further in-depth detail are parasitic acts akin to what a tick does.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 2/13/2014 2:29 AM · Permalink · Report
... compounded with concerns about our being an ostensibly commercial enterprize, trying to turn their well-intentioned altruistic referral traffic into money that doesn't make its way back to the voluminous Wikipedia coffers. Basically, they refuse to go into as much detail as we do, and want to mask the fact that there are alternative sources that do go into deeper detail 8)
Marker (557) on 2/13/2014 7:07 PM · Permalink · Report
They're certainly fortresslike in their elaborate protections against copyright issues, which as an artist I can grasp.
As originator of the art I'm proposing be given exposure, anyone would be hard pressed not to at least listen to an argument in my defense, but they are very akin the the Sphinx of old.
I suppose gate keeping is important, but in many cases these are entities long gone. I will probably continue to attempt to give folks a chance to see the art wherever possible.
I know that MG, not wiki, is the place where real gamers go to be informed, and that takes a lot of the sting out.