We are not a reliable source

Thread in 'Discussion' started by tepples, 15 Nov 2008.

  1. jujube

    jujube Unregistered

    it's the potential i see at wikipedia that i like, not what's going on here. the specific request of removing the tetromino color tables i can agree with, because nobody is trying to make the argument that the piece colors have some effect on gameplay. but for Jappalang to say that much of the article is geeky and doesn't cater to the masses is a bit extreme, and it seems like an assumption about the readers that may not be true. to hold back information because you're afraid some people might not understand it doesn't make sense to me. he/she says that it would be fine to add a spin-off article "Mechanics of Tetris", and at the same time is hinting that we shouldn't waste our time because hardly anybody will understand or appreciate it.

    well, i really don't have a problem with this reasoning. i'm not offended personally that certain things in the article are considered unreliable because they came from tc. but again, it's not just an issue of sourcing, it's apparently an issue of relevancy.

    yeah, it's clearly not better [​IMG] it's exactly what i wouldn't want wikipedia to become.

    i was really just being honest that i can't help looking at the site a little differently now. maybe this is an isolated incident, and maybe i'm making too big of a deal about it. but while "unnecessarily minimized" may seem like a pessimistic statement, what i mean is that i don't see the site as reaching its full potential. in my experience, i've read wikipedia mostly to learn about things i knew nothing about, and usually i was interested in the subject matter, and it was nice to read something organized and reliable. i'm not saying i won't read it anymore, and perhaps now i'm even more confident that what i read there is confirmed truth. it's just kind of sad that some things are being held back. not because the info is from an unsubstantiated source (although there are a couple examples of that in the tetris article), but because it was decided that people wouldn't care about it or understand it. and i'm not talking about somebody writing a novel on lock delay and inserting it into the wikipedia tetris article [​IMG] considering though how much the game has changed, and how relevant these changes actually are (for example, we know that TGM3 bears little resemblance with gameboy tetris), i don't think it's excessive or irrelevant to discuss the specifics of these changes, and to do so requires one to speak technically and thoroughly. if somebody doesn't care so much about these things, they can skip to the next section.
  2. Wikipedia is a joke.

    Recently they also deleted the Wiki page for a freware top-down racing game "GeneRally" (which had been in the Wiki for quite a few years) -> http://generally.rscsites.org , official forums here -> http://forum.racesimcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?f=199 . They said the same thing, that the above were not 'reliable sources', as well as Googling 'generally' was problematic.

    The thing is, this little freeware gem has almost a cult following since day-one (May of 2002), with an EXTREMELY active message forum and fan base (at the above link)... literally THOUSANDS of players around the world.

    Eh, screw the Wikipedia... their loss.
  3. Wikipedia isn't a source, much less a reliable source. With their own reasoning no less..
  4. Jujube: I can't debate your honesty. And I can also respect your opinion. I understand your position, and I've made my points on the matter. All I can say.

    Rich Nagel (and others): I still don't see the reason why one article makes people hate the site as a whole. There are at more than 2 million articles on the website. Even if you thought of 200 articles for obscure games/cult classics/whatever that were deleted/changed think about how big a percentage of the website as a whole you're hating based on less than a percent of deletions/whatever.

    Lee N: It is a source by definition. What you've quoted me saying is not incorrect. And it's very true that it's not a reliable source by its own reasoning. But honestly does that really make a difference? The reliable sources it links to ARE by its reasoning so if you think wikipedia is not reliable in this way you can use it find sources that are. Basically I don't understand this particular complaint.

    And if you think wikipedia is unreliable in general, then I honestly have no idea how I can change your mind. Sure, there are inaccuracies on it. There are inaccuracies in encyclopedias too. The difference is, that rather than having to reprint a book to fix the mistake, an editor who catches the mistake simply has to come by and fix it. Which is an instant fix. Unless someone reverts it. Even so it'll get done faster than any other encyclopedia.

    I'll end with this. I don't really care if you hate the Tetris article/are mad because something you felt was notable got deleted/whatever else. Feel free. But hating the entire website (one with such a VAST scope no less), based on something so small is what gets under my skin.

    Hate Wikipedia if you think its policies get in the way of what's it's trying to accomplish. I'm not gonna debate that anymore as I see it as a reasonable difference in opinion.
  5. I disagree. Wikipedia does not want original research and because of that it isn't the point of origin for anything. It gathers information and links to sources, but it isn't a source in and of itself.
  6. Since when is Wikipedia a dictionary? Maybe you're thinking of Wiktionary?

    You can't say you disagree with a definition and then link to one of Wikipedia's policies to prove your point. The dictionary I use says this:

    "one that supplies information"

    Wikipedia supplies information. It is a source.

    It is very possible that a different dictionary says something else, in which case neither of us could say the other was wrong. That said, you still have not explained your reasoning behind making this statement which is what I am most interested in:
    Provided I am wrong about the definition of source (which would be fine with me. To me it would mean that I chose the wrong word in that sentence, which has nothing to do with how wikipedia operates) and that you actually did care about Wikipedia's opinion of what is and is not a reliable source, even if Wikipedia is not a reliable source by it's own standard, you can still use it to find sources that are reliable by that standard. And that is still a very useful thing, if that is all you're concerned about. So I will say again, I don't understand why you made that statement.
  7. Wikipedia is a secondhand source, but not a firsthand source. So you're both right.
  8. lgb


    Sorry to bump this.

    I find it somewhat funny that one of Wikipedia's biggest rules is "don't follow the guidelines if they aren't handy", yet you must do exactly that to keep half of the things you add there. You should see the "legendary" AfDs I've seen, though that's a small number. Actually, here's a pretty good one.

    You see why there's a place like this around; Wikipedia doesn't like what you have to say, so you take it elsewhere. That's also what http://www.wikia.com is for.
  9. Wikia already offered us to host Tetriswiki - we politely refused. Independance ftw !

    (there was also those ingamedex stealers, but that's another story)
  10. lgb


    A bit offtopic, but I found this oddly ironic somehow.
  11. ark^

    ark^ Unregistered

    Perhaps also ironic, is the fact that Wikipedia is banned from being used as a reference throughout my university, and the reason? Because Wikipedia is unreliable!

    I think it's also banned from most of the universities in the UK on the same grounds if not elsewhere too!
  12. It'd be banned as being used as a reference directly, but it can still be a good way to collect information if you use the cited wikipedia sources as the references.

Share This Page