Castlevania timeline on Wikipedia

[Kristian Ronge]

Csonicgo said:
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php

amazing how a lot of this is still right on the money

"Still"? You make it sound like it was written 5 years ago.

[Csonicgo]

Kristian Ronge said:

"Still"? You make it sound like it was written 5 years ago.

well, given the rapid morphing of Wikipedia as of late, once huge geeky articles are shrinking/merging/falling to earth in flames.

[BoldEnglishman]

Actually I have to agree that some admins go on a delete/merge spree. Sometimes I add stuff from time to time, and I racked up maybe half-two thirds of a page (a list, in 1920x1200 resolution), but the only thing that remains is the only picture I uploaded:

Wow. Actually, I just tried to find it, and now the last thing that remained has been deleted as well... quite depressing actually :'(

[Sharessa]

Yeah, I've added a ton of stuff, and I think all that is left of my work is the page on Cobalt 60 that I started (which has been moved around quite a bit and changed beyond recognition), and the last line of this page, which was originally on the main Starship Troopers page, and again, has been edited a bit.

Apparently the only people who can add stuff and not have it deleted are the elitists that run the place.

EDIT:
Another thing that bugs me on Wikipedia are all those huge banners on the discussion page. Sometimes I read discussion to see what kinds of points of contention there are to get a fuller story, and I click on a blue discussion link only to see some big banner saying "this is part of the Secret Adulterers Wiki Project! Please contribute by expanding it!"

EDIT 2: Heh, that Cobolt 60 page has been edited hundreds of times, and most of them by the same 3 people or so, undoing each other's changes. Typical.

[Coopersville]

Notability and such. IF you're not mentioned by CNN, then you're not worth mentioning. At all.

Anonymous still doesn't have an article on Wikipedia(?). =/


EDIT: Nevermind, that was Fox News.

[Csonicgo]

Coopersville said:

Anonymous still doesn't have an article on Wikipedia(?). =/


EDIT: Nevermind, that was Fox News.

At least we have Encyclopedia Dramatica.

[Ralphis]

I'm not sure if this is a real quote or not from the SA page:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
-Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder

But if it IS a real quote, doesn't that pretty much bust your "It's not a repository of all kinds of information." argument Zaldron?

It would appear that Wikipedia has deviated quite far from what Jimmy Wales envisioned it to be.

[sargebaldy]

That's a real quote but he doesn't mean it. For instance, he decided to have the article on Brian Peppers deleted despite the fact that, like it or not, he was a notable Internet phenomenon. I think he's a big part of the problem there, especially when he steps in and tries to do things his own way. He's completely out of touch with his own site.

[Csonicgo]

Imagine Jimbo Wales.

Now, Imagine 4,447,100 of them.

That is what Alabama is like.

[Coopersville]

Csonicgo said:

At least we have Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Yes. Thank the heavens for ED! Speaking of which:

sargebaldy said:

For instance, he decided to have the article on Brian Peppers deleted despite the fact that, like it or not, he was a notable Internet phenomenon.

The same with the Tourettes Guy, which evidently left me bothered with research. I was going to say that at least Brain Peppers' article will be reopened... But that was scheduled to happen nine months ago.

[Zaldron]

Ralphis said:

But if it IS a real quote, doesn't that pretty much bust your "It's not a repository of all kinds of information." argument Zaldron?

My argument is lifted directly from the What Wikipedia Is Not article.

That directive is so compelling that I can't even disagree with a single entry of the index.

[Our Hero]

My website is old but this is my Castlevania website:

http://www.inverteddungeon.com/thecvattic/

If you need help just message me and I'd be more than glad to help out.

[sidarmas]

Well, we all know Wikipedia contains elitist pig-dogs who want nothing but personal gain. Its called the internet for a reason. When the apocalypse comes, whos gonna give a shit about wikipedia? Nobody, guys. So, lets do the right thing and spam the hell out of these bastards. You only got one life. So lets just do this. :P

I wish. DDOS FOR EVERY 1 :P **

[Quasar]

My Castlevania-related site is here:

http://eternity.mancubus.net/cmc/

I recently reauthored most of my fanfic to vastly improve it. However, my notes and timeline are still pending reorganization. Especially the timeline. I want to just trash everything I've done on it already and redo it as a minimalistic sort of thing that doesn't waste time regurgitating the games' (sometimes asinine) plots and doesn't try so hard to reconcile all the non-canon stuff.

[myk]

While I can't judge this case/article in particular, wikis do have an issue with fictional "universe" stuff invading the descriptions of game or products in awkward ways, and that in many cases needs to be addressed. This detracts from offering a concrete insight of the game or series, turning articles towards a series of inane associations related to their ingame content which is then often associated to related literature or other parallel creative works (such as other games or games of the series). The usual problem is in the way the fictional characters or parts of games and such are handled. There may be some overreaction or "misreaction" to this, but it's a constant issue due to how (or "where") wikis are made.

Danarchy said:
I never fully understood that. I mean, can you not contribute to an article about you, or about a band you're in, or some project you've worked on? What if the said page were full of misinformation?

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to combine and cite sources in a handy and accessible form, not to provide new insights. You're not disallowed to write about yourself or your things, but you still have to reference or validate what you're adding, like anyone else. If there's misinformation and that is evident or can be verified, it can be edited or deleted like any other article.

[Our Hero]

Quasar said:

My Castlevania-related site is here:

http://eternity.mancubus.net/cmc/

I recently reauthored most of my fanfic to vastly improve it. However, my notes and timeline are still pending reorganization. Especially the timeline. I want to just trash everything I've done on it already and redo it as a minimalistic sort of thing that doesn't waste time regurgitating the games' (sometimes asinine) plots and doesn't try so hard to reconcile all the non-canon stuff.

Nice place Quasar, I've read a few fanfics and my friend, Verboten, and I had the Tears of Blood section which a role playing version of Castlevania which previous project included real time writing and whatnot. It was getting crazy though, too many users too little supervision. I think I'll read this... oh nice, Jorge Fuentes submissions heheh. Yea he's a cool dude.

[Dr. Zin]

myk said:

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to combine and cite sources in a handy and accessible form, not to provide new insights. You're not disallowed to write about yourself or your things, but you still have to reference or validate what you're adding, like anyone else. If there's misinformation and that is evident or can be verified, it can be edited or deleted like any other article.

I think it is more along the lines of keeping people from creating aritlces like "OMG I made Cold Fusion in my garage!!!" and other such non-scientific "endeavours".

[Sharessa]

myk said:

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to combine and cite sources in a handy and accessible form, not to provide new insights. You're not disallowed to write about yourself or your things, but you still have to reference or validate what you're adding, like anyone else. If there's misinformation and that is evident or can be verified, it can be edited or deleted like any other article.

Well, see that's the thing. You could just cite your own autobiography. The difference between that and writing a wiki about yourself is almost negligible.