Wikipedia: The 'Soup = Unreliable Source
By Ravi Singh
Posted on November 07, 2006; updated October 19, 2007
"Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general
principles elucidated here." This is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.
The four other "pillars" of WIkipedia, which are the "general principles," include
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, Wikipedia
is free content," and "Wikipedia has a code of conduct.""
I was using Wikipedia for some research in regards to Metal Gear. Not as a factual
source, but mainly, as a reference. So I'm reading the Metal Gear (series) page
and then I decide to view the Talk pages, because sometimes, people don't follow
the "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" rule (ie: fanboys editing the Wii page).
And wow. I found out that my site was mentioned as a source!
lo, someone came to save the day!
"Then use the other sources. thesnakesoup.org isn't a reliable source. - A Man
In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)"
...are you fucking kidding me? Luckily, this guy who's name is an IP Address pushes
it. Just in case this talk page gets edited, I saved a copy of the article and you
can view it here.
But I'll put some of the key quotes in this article.
"This appears to be a personal fansite, which is called out as non-kosher in
WP:RS#Evaluating reliability. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 06:24, 3 August
Apparently, Wikipedia is Jewish. I read this Man In Black's link to WP:RS#Evaluating
and this is what it said:
"Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more
traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption
of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be
evaluated according to the processes and people that created them."
Well, that's understandable. Just because IGN says that they "know" a lot of things
about Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots doesn't mean that they actually do.
And yet, later on in the "Snake Soup is a shitty source I hope you die" debate:
"The reputable sites would be "that other place." For example, if IGN or Gamespot
had an article that confirmed the Game.com rumour (they don't), you'd cite IGN or
Gamespot. You wouldn't cite the fan site, you'd cite the game news site. Anything
you find on a fan site might be useful for looking for more info, but it is not
reliable without other confirmation. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 15:20, 4 August 2006
Yeah. Nice job of enforcing WP:RS#Evaluating reliability! IP Address Man, alias
220.127.116.11, responded, showing these WIkipedians how hypocrisy determines their
edits and whatnot:
"...but WP:RS#Evaluating reliability says:
At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin
boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources.
Which means that my citations typically are "not Kosher." However, in this case,
the source clearly states the facts that need to be cited in this article that has
no citations at all. 18.104.22.168 06:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)"
According to ManInBlack, aka God on Wikipedia, these sites are "notoriously
unreliable." Also, the images above may have been Photoshopped due to the fact
that they are on The Snake Soup, a minor fansite that's notoriously unreliable.
Bam, bitches. Wikipedia does mention that "facts" should be backed up by
sources. But apparently, these sources can only be high-profile commercial sources
run by overpaid idiots, as mentioned by LeScoopertemp above. Apparently, sites
such as this one, Metal
Gear Solid: The Unofficial Site
(WARNING: UNRELIABLE BECAUSE MANINBLACK SAID SO!) and some others are:
"...notoriously unreliable. And I already got rid of all the fansites,
again. I clean them out every few weeks or so. - A Man In Bl?ck 06:59, 3 August
Good code of conduct: just deleting sources without posting it in the
ManInBlack goes far enough to claim that IP Address Man is me, and that I'm
using Wikipedia to advertise this site:
"Well, allowing a minor fansite to advertise itself does not accomplish the
goal of getting this article cited to reliable sources. - A Man In Bl?ck 06:30,
3 August 2006 (UTC)"
Advertise? Hahaha are you fucking kidding me? By your basis, EVERY SINGLE SOURCE
USED IN WIKIPEDIA IS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE SOURCE!!! Think about it, if having
a link to a site is the equivalent to advertising the site, then any source
that is referenced to is not a reference, but rather, an advertisement! And
besides, as Wikipedia's article about "Advertising" states:
"Advertising is the business of drawing public attention to goods and services,
and performed through a variety of media. It is an important part of an overall
promotional strategy. Other components of the promotional mix include publicity,
public relations, personal selling, and sales promotion."
The only advertising I do is my PayPal donatiion button,
 and me paying $10 once to
Sonic Stadium to put my banner up for a month.
IP Address Man is not making any money out of me, nor would he gain any personal
gain from using The Snake Soup as a source! So what the fuck is up ManInBlack's
ass? Because he really needs to pull it out!
So despite Wikipedia's policy, which was linked to by ManInBlack himself, which
states that "personal sites" would "typically" not be reliable (key word: typically),
ManInBlack is too much of a bitch, and likes to use websites like IGN, GameSpot,
and what not. Apparently, if a source has advertising on their own site, they
obviously are reliable enough and using them as a source does not making it
How funny, considering that such "reliable sources" have been more unreliable
than the governments such as... well, ours! I already mentioned to the IGN article
about what they "know" about Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (in reality,
it's all speculations, no better than what was posted in several Metal Gear
IP Address Man quit bugging them, because he probably has a life. Some of you
guys are bored and might want to take action! So here's what I want everyone
to do: follow ManInBlack's orders and use "reliable sources" as your source,
and use sources on the many Metal Gear articles on Wikipedia! I don't want people
spamming WIki, I want people to actually use sources! Such as this one, from
reliable source GameSpot:
"In the Metal Gear timeline, the Game Boy version occurs well before the
GameSpot, a reliable source, claims that Ghost Babel takes place before
Metal Gear Solid. The Snake Soup claims that it isn't. However, The Snake
Soup is merely a minor fansite, so fuck them. Also, even though the lying
photoshopping twat owner of The Snake Soup will admit to photoshopping the
image above, since the only source proving this is on The Snake Soup, this
is not true and the above probably was not, in fact, photoshopped.
The problem is, this site clearly proves that Ghost Babel DOES NOT fit
in the Metal Gear timeline, due to several factors
it DOES NOT take place before the Shadow Moses incident). However, since this
site is NOT a reliable source, according to people such as ManInBlack and
LeScoop or whatever, and GameSpot is a reliable source, Wikipedia will have
to listen to GameSpot's lies. Even this very article of mine, which is stating
that this quote is incorrect,  cannot be used as a
source against Game Spot's! Such as:
"Unfortunately, Metal Gear 2 never made it off the MSX2, and American fans
of Metal Gear were left wanting more. They eventually received an NES-based
sequel to Metal Gear, but it's safe to say that Snake's Revenge isn't quite
what series creator Kojima would have intended."
Too bad Snake's Revenge was released BEFORE Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake! In
fact, it was Snake's Revenge which motivated Hideo Kojima to make a fucking
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake!!! But I guess Wikipedia can't use "personal sites"
such as The 'Soup or MGS:TUS as a source. Apparently, people who have a fansite
just for fun do not have facts on their sites because they are unreliable
photoshoppers. Yes, I guess it's true! Everything on my site is apparently
photoshopped because I like to deceive people! Such as my article about the
ill-fated Game.com "Metal Gear Solid":
"...it's really no more credible than me saying, "I heard back in the 80s
that Tiger Electronics was going to do an LCD handheld Metal Gear game", Photoshopping
a "prototype", and then having that appear later in this article, referencing
my site. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)"
Nevermind the facts that, one, IP Address man states:
"The Game.com thing is real - I saw a video of it. However, I can't cite
myself as a source. The snake soup has a page in regards to it. I have found
other sources on non-personal sites, but they casually mention it being a
posibility. The Snake Soup actually has screenshots from the video I have
seen. 22.214.171.124 07:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)"
He is correct, in that his own words cannot be used as a source. I was a little
off about the video thing (I only found the screenshots) until I read this
on the Game.com Wikipedia article:
"At one point, a gameplay video of the never-released Metal Gear Solid
was distributed among group members."
Looking in the edit history, I find that IP Address Man did not edit that.
That's the number two right there.
Sorry kids, but I didn't photoshop those. If I did, I would put them under
the HOAXES page under THE JUNK.
 This is not
a conspiracy to advertise The Snake Soup. That article has been up since fucking
But I guess that is a lie too, since this site is sooo god damned unreliable.
I guess you should remove every Metal Gear fansite off of your bookmarks and
instead only visit Kojima Production's website. Oh, and Wikipedia, too. There
is no bias from paid companies and employees such as IGN, either. They never
post lies. Forget about the fact that these guys are paid to write shit, so
really, what you're reading is what they researched and were told--not what
they know. Why should anyone trust a non-profit website made by someone
who obviously enjoys a video game series and knows a lot about it?
Or how about everyone treats Wikipedia for what it is, and not discriminate
sources based on your own personal bias. Oh wait, that's too smart. I'd also
need a source to back that up. A reliable one.
UPDATE: 01/19/07 - Ok people, I don't really care if A Man In Black found
this site. Besides the fact that he himself doesn't seem to be all pissed
off about it, I'm way over it as well, and honestly, he was just doing what
most Wikipedians do. Wikipedia does not want to use sites like this one and
The Unofficial Site as sources. Yeah it's somewhat idiotic, and I let out
my feelings on this issue as you have read above, but it's not like I was
on a mad hunt against anybody. A Man In Black isn't stupid or anything. Fuck,
with all the stupid shit people try to put into articles on Wikipedia, it's
no surprise people like A Man In Black don't trust fansites. I'm fine, there's
nothimg more add to this issue, so let us all just get over it like most people
UPDATE: 10/19/07 - Check out this paragraph from
"Having watched the evolution of the Metal Gear franchise ever
since the NES days, I personally have
only gotten seriously into a handful of iterations. My Metal Gear knowledge
goes none too far beyond what I picked up on NES, remember from Metal Gear
Solid on PSX, paid attention to in the
GBC remake, and tried to follow on PSP with Portable Ops."
There's nothing wrong with making a hands-on preview on an installment to
a series you don't know shit about. If I was paid to write a preview on, say,
any Final Fantasy game, I wouldn't know which ones are which. However, I wouldn't
try to say things like "I saw my friend play VII, which was VI but with chicks"
without doing some research (or I would just not say anything at all). My point here
is that if fansites such as this one are not reliable sources, then Wikipedians,
please please PLEASE don't use sites like IGN as a reliable source. It's good
to hear a non-Metal Gear fan tell us his experience with an upcoming Metal Gear
game, but why trust what he says merely because he is an employee for IGN
Entertainment? The person is an unreliable source of Metal Gear information. At least
he's actually admitting it, whereas the people I've quoted above acted like
The only reliable sources should be official websites, public relations, and
interviews (which could be on these kinds of sites). Of course, the only way to prove
this theory is to go to the Metal Gear-related pages on Wiki, and change the
facts to what this guy from IGN just said about Ghost Babel, the NES days,
etc. so that the "reliable" factor is shot down. So go ahead and make those edits.