D&D Modules on Wikipedia

[Yair]

Speaking as a wikipedian...

Thanks for chiming in.

Does wikipedia has a psace problem? Do you need donations to purchase more hard-disk space? Because otherwise, I don't see why you can't have a place for fanzines, local bands, and so on. Not wanting advertisements or entries that can't be verified is one thing; notability is another. There are verifiable local bands, fanzines, private people, and so on - there is just no objective reason to reject entries on them other than what you want Wikipedia to be (a respectible encyclopedia), rather than what others want it to be (a place where they put and share their knowledge).

Why do you care if someone would care in 10 or 20 years, if you have the space? Why do you care if the Head of Vecna was noted in a seperate source, when the primary source can be consulted at numerous libraries?

I strongly disagree with your arbitrary criteria. And as one of the 37,427 who donated money to wikipedia, I feel I've earned the right to bitch about it.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It's basically just one deletionist being a douchebag and undoing everyone's work in the misguided opinion that he is helping Wikipedia.

The site is, unfortunately, swarming with ass-faces like this guy, and there's basically no reasoning with them.

I have pretty much given up on it, because while mofo can spend every day on Wikipedia nominating stuff for deletion and adding inappropriate templates that question the notiblity of all D&D-related pages, I don't have the time or energy to fight him on it.

So dicks win. Again.

The #1 reason that I no longer donate money to Wikipedia - if they want my money then they can start deleting some of their 'editors' as not being notable.

The Auld Grump

 

[Melan]

It's basically just one deletionist being a douchebag and undoing everyone's work in the misguided opinion that he is helping Wikipedia.

The site is, unfortunately, swarming with ass-faces like this guy, and there's basically no reasoning with them.

I have pretty much given up on it, because while mofo can spend every day on Wikipedia nominating stuff for deletion and adding inappropriate templates that question the notiblity of all D&D-related pages, I don't have the time or energy to fight him on it.

So dicks win. Again.

This has to be the best summary of Wikipedia ever written. Concise, yet to the point.

 

[Contrarian]

Thanks for chiming in.

Does wikipedia has a psace problem? Do you need donations to purchase more hard-disk space? Because otherwise, I don't see why you can't have a place for fanzines, local bands, and so on.

It's not a "space" problem, it's a "resource" problem. And by "resource," I mean "editors who aren't hacks."

The people who think that every band, book, cheap fanzine, crappy website, and local celebrity need Wikipedia entries are mostly drive-by hacks. They create a crappy entry about a couple of things, then disappear until somebody tries to delete it, and then whine about how Wikipedia should include everything in the world. Those people aren't really helping anybody -- they're wasting the time of people who cold be working on entries that actually worth reading.

You know what "non-notable" really means? It means "this entry isn't worth the time of a competent editor." Encyclopedia entries can't just be created, they have to maintained. The notability standards are there to keep Wikipedia from filling up with so much childish crap that the grown-ups can't mantain it. Pages about non-notable subjects usually turn into poorly-cited, overly-editorialized, marketing-dominated crap, because nobody has the time to maintain all the non-notable pages.

There's a lot of childish crap in the roleplaying entries, actually. Poorly-cited regurgitations of WOTC books, short-and-pointless entries about monster manuals that do nothing but list the monsters, and a lot stolen clip art (I had to help remove all that, actually, before I quit Wikipedia). The roleplaying articles in Wikipedia are actually some of the worst there. Being published by WOTC doesn't automatically make something important, guys.

People who think an encyclopedia is supposed to include everything in the world don't get it. That's creating an encyclopedia that lacks quality control because it's too big to be managed.

 

[Stoat]

The notability standards are there to keep Wikipedia from filling up with so much childish crap that the grown-ups can't mantain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawberry_shortcake

 

[jaerdaph]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawberry_shortcake

ROTFLMAO! Bitchslap those pseudo-intellectual Wikipedians!

 

[Yair]

...People who think an encyclopedia Wikipedia is supposed to include everything in the world don't get it. That's creating an encyclopedia that lacks quality control because it's too big to be managed.

Let's just say we have a disagreement...

 

[jaerdaph]

Let's just say we have a disagreement...

Once again with the backhand.

 

[brehobit]

Modules, deities and other things still being contested....

It does erk me.

 

[Legildur]

I agree, those criterion seem bizarre. It isn't as if wikipedia is a print encyclopedia and they have a page limit or anything. So long as the information is true and the source of the information documented, IMO wikipedia should be a repository for all sorts of facts.

Absolutely agree with this!!

I don't care how obscure an entry is, it doesn't cost us anything to leave it there - notable or not.

I've spent a fair bit of time recently researching my family's military history and have found some great articles on Wikipedia that are either sufficient for my immediate needs or provide leads to other avenues of exploration.