D&D Modules on Wikipedia

[Nifft]

Maybe I'll check the messageboards again in about six months and see if anything has changed.

You may wish to wait six months after the release of 4e... which will be just over a year from now.

:\, -- N

 

[an_idol_mind]

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.

Wikipedia's greatest strength -- the ability for anyone to read and add their knowledge to it -- is also its greatest weakness as a valid source for citation. Since anyone can edit it and many people do deliberately put in false information, it's not a valid source for an academic paper. It's not because there are many pop culture references or the like; it's because it's too easy to find false information there.

On the other hand, an article that has good citations in it can be useful to someone writing a paper, because the article provides an easy-to-access list of other places to look for more information on the subject.

 

[Thurbane]

Sorry Contrarian, but I have to agree with the others above me.

Unless Wiki is seriously, seriously hurting for server space, I don't see the point in deleting anything unless it is outright false. Anything of public interest, no matter how obscure or esoteric, has a place on Wiki, IMNSHO.

If you don't like it, there's a plethora of other encyclopedia and reference sites that do not have this type of policy.

 

[Faraer]

Most D&D modules don't meet Wikipedia's stated notability guidelines for books, but Wikipedia doesn't generally seem to observe those guidelines.

I like the fact that Wikipedia, in practice, often allows its readers to judge what's notable, rather than enforcing a centralized cultural orthodoxy.

 

[prosfilaes]

Wikipedia's greatest strength -- the ability for anyone to read and add their knowledge to it -- is also its greatest weakness as a valid source for citation.

I wasn't arguing that it was a valid source for citation. The part you quoted was specifically in response to the claim that Wikipedia was pop culture, not academia, like there was nothing in between.

Since anyone can edit it and many people do deliberately put in false information, it's not a valid source for an academic paper.

There's a lot of things that aren't valid sources. Newspapers aren't valid sources for science news, among other things, but that doesn't make the newspaper pop culture and at the level of YouTube.

 

[carmachu]

There's a lot of things that aren't valid sources. Newspapers aren't valid sources for science news, among other things, but that doesn't make the newspaper pop culture and at the level of YouTube.

Newspapers dont let an asshat edit their articles and add or delete teh information printed in teh paper.

I recall some time back corporations and the like were editing stuff to make themselves beteter, or at least not as bad.

And there in lies the problem. Its a nice place to start, but its not hard facts either. Too fluid.

 

[freyar]

Newspapers dont let an asshat edit their articles and add or delete teh information printed in teh paper.

I recall some time back corporations and the like were editing stuff to make themselves beteter, or at least not as bad.

And there in lies the problem. Its a nice place to start, but its not hard facts either. Too fluid.

This is all true, but it doesn't mean that newspapers are legitimate sources for science news. As an example, there is a very recent case where journalists picked up on bogus physics "research" largely because the author presented a human interest story. As a result, a number of scientists had to postpone their own serious work to correct the public relations hype. On this story, Wikipedia was at least a little more responsible.

FWIW, I do find Wikipedia useful as a reference for basic math when I do my own research, especially as a list of references. But it would never be cited as a reference in a research paper.

 

[Erik Mona]

I'm on vacation now so I can't get around to this for a couple of weeks, but it strikes me that the book "Heroic Worlds" by Lawrence Schick would be a great resource for Wikipedians looking to prove the notability of various D&D modules. That book contains a capsule review of every single TSR product up to the early years of second edition, and might be the long-sought notability secondary source "holy grail" for a lot of these articles, since it was published independent of TSR.

If anyone else has the book, I urge them to look at it and see if there is anything worth adding to establish notability to some of the D&D module pages.

--Erik

 

[Yair]

FWIW, I do find Wikipedia useful as a reference for basic math when I do my own research, especially as a list of references. But it would never be cited as a reference in a research paper.

True. I did insert a graph from Wikipedia regarding world energy production into my PhD proposal's talk, but just as a talking point - I wouldn't rely on it as a source for hard data, I principally use it as a memory aid to make sure I remember the formulas right (figuring the chances are nill that my faulty memory and Wikipedia's entry will make the same mistakes). And as a source for RPG "research", where the truth doesn't matter.

 

[prosfilaes]

Newspapers dont let an asshat edit their articles and add or delete teh information printed in teh paper.

I recall some time back corporations and the like were editing stuff to make themselves beteter, or at least not as bad.

Ever heard of a press release? That's where corporations had newspapers a free story, and newspapers run it. Press releases are widely used by corporations and non-profits because they help them spin news their way, and are frequently used as is or nearly so by newspapers.