Vic George 2K3 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 From an article about Pac-Man for the 2600: Pac-Man was a port of the arcade game of the same name for the Atari 2600. It was developed and published by Atari Inc. in 1981. It was the first port of the arcade game, which was developed by Namco and released in 1980. Atari was the licensee for the video game console rights. ... The poor quality of the port is blamed on the Atari marketing department's rush to bring the game to the market. They asked Tod Frye, one of Atari's principal game programmers, to do the port; he showed them a prototype he had already developed. Rather than miss the approaching 1981 Christmas season, Atari produced the game based on the unfinished prototype.[1] Where the heck did they get THIS information from? Sounds like somebody's revising history, because Atari 2600 Pac-Man was released in March and April 1982, complete with a Pac-Man Day to celebrate its release, despite it saying © 1981 ATARI on the game screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) From an article about Pac-Man for the 2600: Why don't you just correct the wrong facts? That's how Wikipedia works. Edited October 10, 2008 by Thomas Jentzsch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic George 2K3 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 (edited) Unfortunately, somebody's "watchdogging" the page. Nobody wants their "misinformation" to be corrected. Link to the page in question Edited October 11, 2008 by Vic George 2K3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 (edited) Unfortunately, somebody's "watchdogging" the page. Nobody wants their "misinformation" to be corrected. Link to the page in question Add some links which prove your changes. If they are still undone, report the "correcting" person for abuse. BTW: The web is full of 1981 and 1982 release dates. E.g. google for "Pac Man" Atari 2600, combined with 1981: 28100 hits, 1982: 36600 hits. Edited October 11, 2008 by Thomas Jentzsch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGQuarterly Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I just tried to fix the page and use the game's entry at DP as a reference. Some of you around here will be happy to know that Digitpress.com has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dauber Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) Heh...that sounds like Inky's theory, which he himself admits is just a theory and he doubts that's what happened...(right, Ink??) And the article it cites is loaded with grammar and spelling errors...I'd hope for something more official, y'know? Edited October 13, 2008 by Dauber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Some of you around here will be happy to know that Digitpress.com has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. Holy shit! Why would someone do that. And NO, I am NOT happy about that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGQuarterly Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I re-edited the page about an hour ago using a different reference, so we'll see what happens. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dauber Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 How exactly does Wikipedia blacklist a web site, especially since several other articles use digitpress as a reference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Some of you around here will be happy to know that Digitpress.com has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. Holy shit! Why would someone do that. And NO, I am NOT happy about that! It's because someone associated with DP (take a guess) was spamming DP links in various articles, as well as vandalizing other pages (removing links to AtariAge and AtariProtos.com, for instance). They left behind a pretty big trail of evidence, and DP was subsequently blacklisted from Wikipedia. ..Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vectorman0 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) Some of you around here will be happy to know that Digitpress.com has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. Holy shit! Why would someone do that. And NO, I am NOT happy about that! It's because someone associated with DP (take a guess) was spamming DP links in various articles, as well as vandalizing other pages (removing links to AtariAge and AtariProtos.com, for instance). They left behind a pretty big trail of evidence, and DP was subsequently blacklisted from Wikipedia. ..Al There was no "they." DP.com is currently blacklisted, whatever that entails. The Wikipedia entry for DP was removed on the basis of notability, and there are still a bunch of articles that cite the DP website. Edit - edited info on blacklisting Edited October 13, 2008 by Vectorman0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 There was no "they." Eh? Tempest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artlover Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Some of you around here will be happy to know that Digitpress.com has been blacklisted by Wikipedia.Holy shit! Why would someone do that. And NO, I am NOT happy about that! It's because someone associated with DP (take a guess) was spamming DP links in various articles, as well as vandalizing other pages (removing links to AtariAge and AtariProtos.com, for instance). They left behind a pretty big trail of evidence, and DP was subsequently blacklisted from Wikipedia.Beat me to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus...uppets/Tube_bar One wouldn't think that running an easter eggs link on a site would go to someone's head like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 There was no "they." Eh? Actually it looks like it was only one certain person* giving DP a bad reputation (again). *correctly guessed at 1st try Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 There was no "they." Eh? Actually it looks like it was only one certain person* giving DP a bad reputation (again). I see now. I misunderstood the comment. Tempest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 There was no "they." Okay, "He". DP.com is currently blacklisted, whatever that entails. The Wikipedia entry for DP was removed on the basis of notability, and there are still a bunch of articles that cite the DP website. The digitpress.com article was removed, digitpress.com was blacklisted and they also removed all the links (as opposed to citations) from other articles that were pointing to DP. ..Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vectorman0 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The digitpress.com article was removed, digitpress.com was blacklisted and they also removed all the links (as opposed to citations) from other articles that were pointing to DP. ..Al I understand now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+McCallister Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Wow. Interesting thread. No idea who this person is; does he have some sort of feud going with AA or something? Is it just him, or is it a site war between DP and here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGQuarterly Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Someone already changed it back. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Beard Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Someone already changed it back. Particularly bizarre is that the footnoted citation doesn't even support the claim -- it says nothing about "the approaching 1981 Christmas season." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic George 2K3 Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 (edited) Guess people would rather be comfortable with misinformation than the truth -- and the truth, despite what the Wikipedia article says, is that Pac-Man was released in April 1982 rather than Christmas 1981. The only thing related to Pac-Man that I ever saw in stores in Christmas 1981 was K.C. Munchkin for the Odyssey 2 system. Edited October 14, 2008 by Vic George 2K3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Someone already changed it back. Chris Can't you see who is changing it back? Isn't there someone at wiki you can contact? Tempest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vectorman0 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 The best part about all of this is that the article for the original Pac-man arcade game states 1982 as the date in the 2600 port section. Tempest, this is the person who undid Jibba's edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wgungfu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornpipe2 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 He's an AA member : ) http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showuser=160 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Rogue Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 (edited) At the risk of forking the process over to here as well (when it was already occurring on the Wikipedia talk page for pac-man 2600), I'll repeat everything here (Matt suggested I should). First off, I'm a long time and well known AA member, professional video game historian, writer, coder, etc. So I only have the interest at getting to the bottom of things and presenting good info. That said, Wikipedia has standard processes for adding and certifying conflicting info. Regarding what someone said about the spelling errors, content, etc. in the article - that's because just about every single article is a mishmash of several years of edits by 100's (if not 1000's in some cases) of people. The "they" in "where did they get the information from" that Vic is complaining about, is ironic because it comes from people like Vic and the rest of you. Its all user contributed. There are people (such as myself and other editors that are part of the Video Games Project there) that go through and try and rewrite sections, provide needed references, etc. etc. to improve an article to meet Feature Article Candidate status (the article on Space Invaders just reached that status). Unfortunately, there's 1000's of video game related articles (I specialize in Atari related articles and a few other subjects), and much of the time is spent either a) Monitoring for vandalism, b) Doing research for references, c) Doing other important things as its all volunteer and Wikipedia is just not that important to run my or others day. When there's a case like this, where someone like Vic posted on the talk page about an incorrect date, he may not have realized he engaged the standard process for content resolution. I.E., established editors will respond in kind, talk about the issue, try and find resources, and come to a general consensus. As was explained to Vic, Wikipedia doesn't work on someone's personal memories. And when there's a conflict on information, they're usually discussed, researched, and a consensus is formed via regular contributors. Not force edited because a few AA people are novices with how Wikipedia works, and want to go by their memories. The information so far is leaning towards 1981. Specifically - http://www.atariage.com/catalog_overview.html?CatalogID=32 Catalog CO16725-Rev. D (1981) states "Available March". There's also http://www.gamespot.com/atari2600/action/pacman/index.html GameSpot, http://cheats.ign.com/objects/009/009554.html IGN gives the specific date of Sept. 9th, 1981. http://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-2600/pac-man/mobyrank Moby says 1981. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3551...rms_.php?page=5 This Gamasutra article states 1981. http://www.pcworld.com/article/127579-4/ This PC World article lists 1981. http://www.thelogbook.com/phosphor/atari26/q0-00/eat26.html This site like most of the other sources out there talks about it being rushed for the '81 Christmas season. Master of the Game (Warner corporate biography) talks about the stellar quarter one earnings reported in early 1982. Quarter 2 earnings for 1982 were reported in July of that year (which are usually reported a month after the end of the quarter), which would make Quarter 2 March through May and Quarter 1 Dec. through Feb., which falls in line with the offset calendar most companies and the Government use for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_Year reporting, and leans towards supporting the Fall release time period. There's also the lawsuit launched by Atari against Magnavox for K.C. Munchkin, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...hkin&st=cse which reached its conclusion on March 19th, 1982, and http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/AVERETT.HTM this interview with K.C. programmer Ed Averett where he mentions how K.C. was kicking Pac-Man's but in the market before that final ruling, which would also support the earlier release date. The only place I could find that April date being claimed was in Steve Kent's Ultimate History of Video Games book, which is hardly known for its accuracies and fact checking. Its standard to keep a current edit until satisfactorily proven that other information is more valid, the burden is for the person who wants to change the information to provide references from notable and verifiable (see WP:Notable and WP:Verify) references. Hence reverting people who keep trying to change it while the discussion is going on. Ironically, someone tried to add a reference to the 2600 page on my site (CG.Com) which was written 10 years ago by Fragmaster and contains info that's not necessarily correct - including the date in this case. Now, I talked to Curt and he's digging through his resources (corporate emails, etc.) to see if he can find an actual release date. From his memories he thinks its Spring '82 as well. The problem is though again, Atari/Warner reported stellar first quarter earnings that year due to its release of Pac-Man. A quarter is three months, and businesses usually offset them as stated above. Atari/Warner reported their 1982 4th quarter earnings on Dec. 7th of that year, which would make fourth quarter Sept - Oct and then First Quarter Dec. - Feb. So for Atari to have had reported Pac-Man earnings effecting the first quarter, that would have to put the release sometime during the Dec '81 through Feb '82 time frame. Edited October 14, 2008 by wgungfu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.