D&D Modules on Wikipedia

[Kaladhan]

What's the nickname of the dick in question? Any chance it's Mr Spellbinder?

 

[Delta]

Unfortunately, I think this is a Wikipedia-thing, not a D&D-thing. I've been hearing about mass deletions for "non-notability" a lot recently.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

We need to get Vin Diesel to make a series of D&D-module movies. Then they'll be notable.

Is D&D mythology less notable than Sumerian mythology? D&D mythology is still alive.

Sumerian mythology is very much alive. The Sumerian people are not. Big difference.

 

[Robbastard]

Wikipedia has quite a few articles on classic D&D modules, and even plot summaries in some cases, but most of them are pegged as possibly being non-notable.

Are D&D modules notable? (By wikipedia standards, I mean). And how would you convince someone of that fact? Is there a D&D-specific wiki that's better suited to that kind of thing?

There are some good D&D-based alternatives to Wikipedia:

D&D wiki: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Dark Sun wiki: http://www.darksunwiki.com/darksun/index.php/Main_Page

Dragonlance wiki: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/DragonLance

Forgotten Realms wiki: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forgotten_Realms

Greyhawk wiki: http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Spelljammer wiki: http://spelljammer.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Sorry, but I didn't have much luck finding an active wiki for Planescape, Ravenloft, or Mystara.

 

[Robbastard]

What's the nickname of the dick in question? Any chance it's Mr Spellbinder?

The main culprit is User:Gavin.collins, who I doubt has anything to do with Randy Richards (User:Cryogenesis), who hasn't been active on Wikipedia for over a year, AFAIK.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

The thing is - not just pro-WOTC can edit topics. But also Gary-ist grognards, who could edit topics to place anti-WOTC and all slander.

 

[TerraDave]

Its my understanding that this criteria was originally put in for things like somebody putting themselves on there, or local bands and fanzines.

A module that hundreds of thousands or even millions of people have been exposed to (as was the case with the older, classic, modules), does not deserve this, and does go against the whole point of wikipedia.

 

[Lord Zack]

Yeah this sucks, because I use Wikipedia for looking up info for my game as well as other endeavors that would use articles that some might not think are notable enough. So I've been finding myself using other wikis for that sort of thing. I suggest we contribute to the Wikis that Robbastard posted.

 

[Ripzerai]

Sorry, but I didn't have much luck finding an active wiki for Planescape, Ravenloft, or Mystara.

Planescape has the Encyclopedia of the planes, which uses different software than Wikipedia (it's something the local webmistress came up with), but does much the same thing. It's still editable if you have a forum account there.

I read what I thought was a pretty clever essay on Wikipedia on this blog, which said, among other things, "Wikipedia... is determined to spend the coin of its own relevance as quickly as it can earn it by chasing the chimera of academic respectability at the expense of its own natural areas of strength... While Britannica and other venerable institutions of the encyclopedia business struggle with the question of, 'How do we remain relevant in this ever-changing world?', Wikipedia’s asking the question, 'How can I get to be where Britannica is now?' I’m reminded of a cartoon Kris Straub drew of a man motoring out to catch the sinking Titanic, as a metaphor for a cartoonist chasing a syndication deal."

On the other hand, a lot of the D&D articles - like a lot of Wikipedia's pop-cultural articles in general, and to some degree Wikipedia articles in general - are so filled with errors, fanon, and other junk that the only solution I can see is to torpedo them and start over from scratch. Or else they boil down to only a line or two of real information and aren't much of a loss. That's why I'm spending free time editing the Greyhawk wiki rather than bothering to make corrections or additions to Wikipedia articles that are likely to get deleted eventually anyway.

I do like Wikipedia, and use it for reference all the time. I bet most of us do. The fact that it's editable means that articles do tend to improve with time (compare the present Graz'zt article to the original one!), and errors that accrete after it's been improved tend to get eliminated quickly by better-informed editors who are watching it. I don't think it's a failed experiment by any means. It definitely has its weaknesses, though.

 

[Thurbane]

Its my understanding that this criteria was originally put in for things like somebody putting themselves on there, or local bands and fanzines.

A module that hundreds of thousands or even millions of people have been exposed to (as was the case with the older, classic, modules), does not deserve this, and does go against the whole point of wikipedia.

Exactly.

It's some jackass being elitist, who apparently doen't consider D&D a "noteworthy" hobby.

It's a sad fact of the human condition that some people basically only exist to make life a little less enjoyable for others...