Infobox could use links to more digital distributors
Then it's better to move into a new section of the article, or as mentioned before, turn into a collapsible table.
I'm with Newmansan on this one; I don't think it's bias so much as proportional representation. As already stated it's not feasible to cite every single digital distributor for each game, so why not promote the 3 most major ones - I'd imagine the vast majority of our site traffic will have an account with one of those 3 distributors; how many people comparatively will have an account with Desura, etc.?
We aren't here to advertise and promote all digital distributors; and I could see your point if we, for example, exclusively linked to Steam, but that's not the case. I could see a collapsible table having some use for quick price comparison reference between a multitude of distributors, but this information would have to be constantly adjusted and vetted for every game so it's not necessarily feasible. As for creating a table purely to ensure every digital distributor is represented and for nothing else, I honestly don't see the point.
If anyone has any objections to this I'm more than happy to go with it, but I think the general consensus amongst the site editors and moderators is that it isn't strictly necessary.
Why not promote the 3 major ones? Because this Wiki is not about promoting DD plataforms. And yes, in many cases the articles link exclusively to Steam. Even if they are available on other DD plataforms (other than Origin and GOG), for example. And with posting a selected couple of DD direct links, we are misleading the people by making them think that Steam, Origin or GOG are the only ways to get the game. It's unfair, misleading and biased.
What's the purpose of these links? To show where the game is available to buy? To show that the game is available digitally? Either way, there is really no excuse to just link the "the most known" plataforms. It's more informative to name all the DD plataforms that have the game on a section of the article, instead of the infobox. That way we are not hiding anything, and the information regarding the game is more complete.
Thank you all for taking part in this discussion which I've been tracking today but haven't been able to reply until now.
I am broadly in agreement with Alexrd that we should list every single version available. Even though some distribution channels are less well known, this does not mean that they are better or worse.
1) Every possible version should be listed, in case they have specific fixes required of them.
2) It could very well be the case that a Desura version or a Beamdog version could be the very best (or even exclusive, as the new Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition will be), therefore there is no point limiting ourselves to only Steam and GOG.com.
3) We should take out the store links from the Infobox and put them in a new collapsible table.
But Andy, how many people are going to want to fill in all that info? No-one. By just pointing out important differences in the article, it keeps the article more focused.
I'd have no qualms about maybe putting links to the top 3 stores where the game is available in the infobox. For example, if steam or gog doesn't have a particular game, put in the next largest DD that has it. Leave the option for most DD's in in the infobox, but just fill in the top 3 that have it. That way it's more a matter of who has it and less about how big they are.
A Wiki is a collaborative effort. You contribute with the ones you know, if you want to. Nobody is obliged to do that, the same way nobody is obliged to create or edit articles. And why name only the top 3 stores? Why choose Steam instead of Beamdog, for example? What if a game is not available on those "top 3" stores but on some other? I'll say it again, it's misleading and biased to just name only the "most known".
And Andytizer, many thanks for finding a reasonable solution. About the differences between each version, can the DRM (or lack of, as in the case of GOG) count as a version difference? It's a relevant detail for some (including me) to know if a said game is available DRM-free or not.
Thanks in advance.
If a game is not available on the top three, then it would list the 3 most popular DD services (via some measure like # of users or something, something measurable) that have the game available. That way there are quick links to a few DD services, and it's more about who has it and less about popularity. It provides quick info like the infobox is designed to do while remaining fairish, and allows a space in the article proper to expand on info.
As for your other question, I think that DRM is a difference to note, but only in a case where say most have it and one doesn't (thus only noting the one that doesn't have it, and not mentioning every one that has it.)
I'm all for being fair most of the time, but not to the point where we have to stuff every article with massive amounts of mostly unnecessary information in the name of "fairness".
I agree that the infobox is not the right place for DD links, it is too cluttered otherwise.
However, we should aim to place information on every single DD service a game is available to. This allows people to input data about differences in versions (there usually are!)
It's not even a question of 'fairness' as such, but it's a core part of what the wiki is about. I want to reduce the amount of searching (like searching for Fallout GOG vs Steam vs GamersGate vs White Label etc.) by putting all this info in a centralised, user-editable area. We aim high and we will get there eventually :).