SpokenTruth said:
Aquamarine said:
SpokenTruth said:
Wiki doesn't allow theoretical or cotnrived data. It has to come directly from a valid source. Even if you can prove 100% the figures are correct, it's against policy to use it unless it's published by a reputable source.
I've had these battles with them before.
|
So you can't use Sony Corp IR documents / official Sony PR statements?
2.2 million PSV Shipments source:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/20/vita-sales-august-2012/
FY12 (through March 2013) PSP + PSV Shipments source:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/12q4_sonypre.pdf
(slide 14)
That's not only arbitrary, it's hypocritical.
See this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Boy
Those Virtual Boy sales figures are wrong.
And the alleged "source" is some ancient 3rd-rate article that just quoted hearsay.
But apparently they have no problem quoting that as "fact."
Wikipedia is such a joke.
|
The Sony IR reports combine PSP and PS Vita shipments. If they were separate, it would be valid.
As for Virtual Boy data, did you just say that GamePro was 3rd rate and quoting heresay?
|
I know...and it's absolute nonsense. If it's a legitimate source you should be allowed to incorporate it into the article given proper framing and context.
And in general, GamePro wasn't 3rd-rate...but that online "feature" Wikipedia so desperately relies on sure was.
Numerous sales figures in that article, including the Sega 32X figures and Virtual Boy figures they list...do not match sales data from the time period.
Rather, that feature seems to have sourced its numbers from hearsay and numbers taken out of their original context decades ago.
Notice how he (the author) didn't bother to cite any data sources. Nope...just "770K" like we're all supposed to take that number at face value.
