D&D Modules on Wikipedia

[Contrarian]

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

No, let's just say you're wrong. Because you are.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

No, let's just say you're wrong. Because you are.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. The inclusionist is willing to let the exclusionist perceive the situation differently. The exclusionist is unwilling to let the inclusionist perceive the situation differently.

The greatest problem from here, though, is when the exclusionist believes something is not notable to the point that any evidence to the contrary is summarily ignored and called not evidence. Consensus becomes impossible.

 

[Contrarian]

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

You realize, of course, that entry is way better than most of the D&D entries, don't you? It has proper citations. It just doesn't recite the plot of a book. It has historical information that's accurate, and it connects the subject to things outside itself, illustrating its relevance to other subjects.

As opposed to most D&D module entries, which don't tell you anything you couldn't learn by reading the damn module.

And most D&D monster entries, which don't tell you anything you couldn't learn by reading the damn Monster Manual.

Those aren't encyclopedia entries. They're goddamn book reports, and they're not even good ones.

Also, way more people have heard of Strawberry Shortcake than will ever care to read about King's Festival. (That's a textbook example of non-notable work. There's not even enough going on in that module to fill the damn template some idiot installed.) I find Strawberry Shortcake insipid and boring, but I'm grownup enough to understand that she's more notable than most D&D adventures. Or crappy local bands. Or poorly-written fanzines. Or a whole lot of other non-notable things that would be a drain on Wikipedia's human resources.

You guys need to get over your Gamer Persecution Complex and see that some things in our hobby just ain't that important, and that pointing that out is not an attack on the hobby.

 

[jdrakeh]

You guys need to get over your Gamer Persecution Complex and see that some things in our hobby just ain't that important, and that pointing that out is not an attack on the hobby.

Maybe not, but I'm pretty certain that your post constitutes an attack on ENWorld posters and, as such, I've reported it.

 

[Storm Raven]

No, let's just say you're wrong. Because you are.

No. You are wrong. Fundamentally so.

You seem to think that Wikipedia just needs to up its standards in order to be taken seriously. By making better edited articles, somehow Wikipedia will push itself into respectability and be considered to be on par with traditional encyclopaedias.

You are, bluntly, completely wrong. Wikipedia will never be taken seriously in that way. Wikipedia needs to define itself as something different than a traditional encyclopaedia, and play to its own strengths. Wikipedia, unlike a traditional encyclopaedia, doesn't have a page limitation, and can include as much material as it wants to. By limiting itself to "notable" material, Wikipedia just dooms itself to long term irrelevance as a project that once had promise, but turned into something mundane that is simply an imitation of other, more worthwhile resources.

Basically, the "non-notable" articles should be what Wikipedia specializes in. Because the other resources don't cover them, and Wikipedia can. By eschewing this unique area, Wikipedia is probably going to end up dooiming itself to irrelevancy once someone comes up with a competing site that does cover them.

 

[Dykstrav]

You seem to think that Wikipedia just needs to up its standards in order to be taken seriously. By making better edited articles, somehow Wikipedia will push itself into respectability and be considered to be on par with traditional encyclopaedias.

... Wikipedia will never be taken seriously in that way.

Wikipedia was new when I was in college, and I distinctly remember all of my professors telling me that wikipedia was not acceptable as a source for research papers and the like. Considered anecdotal at best, wikipedia can be an amusing thing to spend an hour browsing through, but I've never seen it taken very seriously as a source of reliable information.

The DM of the Forgotten Realms game that I play in teaches English and classical literature at a state university. He tells me that every time he sees a paper with a wikipedia entry cited as a source, he tosses it out without even bothering to read it and the student automatically gets a failing grade for that paper.

I'm not even going to comment about what wikipedia should do about its policies. I don't honestly care enough to form a solid opinion one way or the other. I'm simply sharing the observation that wikipedia is pop culture, not academia. Hell, wikipedia even has an article about criticism of wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia. Wikipedia is in the same league as youtube and myspace. The way it's set up now, it's never going to be mentioned alongside Britannica.

 

[prosfilaes]

He tells me that every time he sees a paper with a wikipedia entry cited as a source, he tosses it out without even bothering to read it and the student automatically gets a failing grade for that paper.

Wow, what a jerk. I hope he at least announces this rule in class, but even at that, failing a paper for a single mistake...

I'm simply sharing the observation that wikipedia is pop culture, not academia.

Academic elitism at its worst; if it's not from us, it must be merely pop culture, and not interesting. It's not a rigorous source, but encyclopedias never really are. That doesn't mean it's not a good source for serious information, nor does it mean that people aren't using it as a source of serious information. The depth and breadth of information on academic topics is amazing, and much cheaper and more accessible than a traditional encyclopedia.

The way it's set up now, it's never going to be mentioned alongside Britannica.

The science journal Nature published an article claiming that Wikipedia articles on science were more accurate than Brittanica. It is already being mentioned beside Britannica in official sources.

 

[Eridanis]

Let's keep this conversation civil, please.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Academic elitism at its worst; if it's not from us, it must be merely pop culture, and not interesting.

Personally, I like wikipedia as a nice, online, free source of information to start delving deeper into other topics. That said, I find it strange that many large articles tend to be about pop culture and not some of the subjects that I would like more detail on. So be it.

 

[Dykstrav]

Let's keep this conversation civil, please.

Let me apologize for even getting involved in this discussion at all. I can't think of the last time I posted on a thread that didn't eventually get get locked, except those directly related to rules questions. It's not constructive and the posters seem to have their minds made up. Maybe it's stress from the holidays or 4th edition on the horizon... I hate to think that gamers have gotten like this.

Whatever. I don't have the time, energy, or interest to watch people argue electronically with each other. Maybe I'll check the messageboards again in about six months and see if anything has changed.