Wikipedia could be concerned with the great number of times this site has been hacked with X site scripting hacks.

I guess they think the numbers are not good enough.

Well do they want a picture of ever consle that is bought for proff?

meh, wiki is full of shit anyway

an encyclopedia isn't going to reference a source that admits that it's numbers aren't fact.

However it may be more helpful if you state what info you were adding that got removed.

Also it would be useful to know if they reference NPD in the same way they won't reference VGchartz. There simply isn't enough info to know why exactly they aren't allowing it.

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...

Are they labeling it an non-reliable source or is it being deleted?

Since it is community-based encyclopedia, if it is the latter, then there is a chance that whomever is doing that is biased against VGChartz.

It is interesting that I saw the Blue Sky Rangers own website (Intellivision programmers) labeled as an unreliable source when they were listing general sales for all systems. Basically, the BSRs were quoting from company (Mattel) shipments but probably did not have the original data.

Ironically, if the numbers are published in a printed periodical, they often become "reliable" regardless of course.

Mike from Morgantown

PS -- I have used Wikipedia as a source for basic descriptive information for reports -- just so I didn't have to do it myself.

Because the Wiki isn't reliable.

:-p