The_vagabond7 said:
I find this attitude very ironic from a user of this site. Wikipedia has a tremendous amount of useful and accurate information on just about anything you can think of. It does get some stuff wrong. But it has a bad reputation because it's not a proffesional encyclopedia and the idea sounds like it would be innacurate.
Then there is VGchartz, a website with a tremendous amount of useful and accurate information for just about anything sales related to videogames today. It does get some stuff wrong. But it has a bad reputation because it's not a proffesional firm and the idea of one guy trying to take a tiny sample size and extrapolate from there sounds like it would be innacurate.
|
While there are definitely people who equate professional with accurate, the reality of it is that any encyclopedia or tracking firm data, while they can be extremely useful, generally lack peer review (at least compared to an academic standard).
The reason wiki doesn't view VGChartz as a reliable source is the exact same reason that academics don't use wikipedia as a reliable source. IMO, for VGChartz (or NPD) to head towards being accepted as reliable, they need to not only publish their results, but also the raw data, who it was collected from, actual units sold, etc...
