Fredrick2003 said:
I am not an expert on all fields of human knowledge, and I don't have that kind of time. Try using Wikipedia as an academic source and see what happens.
I don't like the "word" gameplay because it is too simplistic, and I still don't have a definition. From what I can gather though, it's something like "the overall experience one has when playing a game" is that correct?
The problem is, game debates turn out like this.
"This game has bad gameplay."
"This game is better because it has good gameplay."
"This game has better gameplay than yours."
"HOLY SHIT THIS IS THE GAMIEST GAMEPLAY GAME I'VE EVER GAMED!!!"
First if all, people can say stupid vague shit with 'real words' too, so I don't see your point.
Here's an article talking about wikipedia's growing level of acceptance in the academic world:
http://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/is-wikipedia-becoming-a-respectable-academic-source/
Secondly, you should check wikipedia's page on academic use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
Wikipedia states that should not cite wikipedia as a source but rather cite the sources that the wikipedia poster has earmarked. Wikipedia remains a great resource to find citations on a specific topic from sites that contain things like .edu and .gov. If you had to research a recent cultural phenomon like 'rickrolling', it remains to be one of your best options.
I'd also like to point out that you cited two angry-rant-comedy-blogs to back yourself up.
You also admit that it would take you a significant amount of time to find something incorrect on wikipedia.
I remember an Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Hitler that began: "Adolph Hitler is one of the most evil men in world history." That's hardly subjective and unbiased.
If you really wanna argue semantics, it might be more interesting to talk about how:
"A seagull is not a bird."
"Black is not a color."
"Zero is not a number."