D&D Modules on Wikipedia

[Orius]

Wikipedia is not a D&D wiki. It is a general-purpose wiki, and its articles have to be relevant to all sorts of readers, not just those interested in D&D. This also means that it's playing in the same field as high-profile general-purpose encyclopedias, and its reputation will be decided on the same terms as apply to those encyclopedias. Having lots of articles of interest mainly to the geek community only perpetuates the image that it's a geek ghetto, and doesn't help WP's standing.

I kind of agree. I don't see the need for very deep and extensive articles on Wikipedia for stuff like D&D, popular science fiction, comic books, video games and so on, but sometimes the articles under those subjects get very detailed. I don't think users who aren't interested in those subjects really need or want to know the minutiae of geek-fu that we pride ourselves on. I think it does kind of make the Wikipedia look a bit silly. Since these subjects have their own wikis, let the details go on them and let Wikipedia at least have links to those wikis.

So going back to the original posts in this topic, Wikipedia doesn't really need extensive descriptions of the modules in the history of D&D. Having a single page with a sentence or two giving a brief and concise description of the module contents, and a sentence or two explaining the relevance in overall D&D culture should be sufficient.

 

[Yair]

I kind of agree. I don't see the need for very deep and extensive articles on Wikipedia for stuff like D&D, popular science fiction, comic books, video games and so on, but sometimes the articles under those subjects get very detailed. I don't think users who aren't interested in those subjects really need or want to know the minutiae of geek-fu that we pride ourselves on. I think it does kind of make the Wikipedia look a bit silly. Since these subjects have their own wikis, let the details go on them and let Wikipedia at least have links to those wikis.

While I disagree, I do think Wikipedia needs to institute several "detail levels". See for example, the Encyclopedia of Life - look at this page, at the left below the picture there is a "Detail" bar. "Less" detail gives you a single paragraph. Currently any other setting will give you the same infomation, but that's for lack of contributers - the infrastructure is there to allow the readers and writers to engage in any level of detail that they desire.

 

[TerraDave]

So, I decided to actually look at the module entries on wikipedia....

You can find a list of many 1st and 2nd edition modules:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_modules

A sampling of "classics" (including some not on the above list) showed that most did not have the "notability" label, and some actually had pretty good entries that were more then just rehashes of the contents:

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenloft_(D&D_module)

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

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

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

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

Of course, treatment is not uniform , for example the first set of Dragonlance adventures and the A series have composite entries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonlance_modules_(DL_series)

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

I was disapointed that there was limited info on Judges Guild:

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

But overall, not bad.

Now, I did look a little more, and did find the notability label on a few:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyhawk_Ruins_(module)

Of these three, I feel that only deep dwarven delve deserved it. But the other two could be better. H1 doesn't really use it sources, and the Greyhawk Ruins entry just was not good.

At the same time, there are non-notable modules with bad entries that really should go away. Like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_Festival_(module)

 

[Kesh]

At the same time, there are non-notable modules with bad entries that really should go away. Like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_Festival_(module)

Yeah, that one's pretty bad. I prod-ed it. If no one does anything to in the next 5 days, it'll go away.

 

[Gilladian]

I think I kinda have to disagree with some of y'all about the level of detail being too geeky for wikipedia. I'm a reference librarian. I use wikipedia ALL the TIME as an informal tool for "mood" info about authors, series, literary genres, etc....

No, I don't often need the entire history of a given module in great detail, but when a patron comes to me and says "I need to know WHY this author's work is categorized as Science Fiction and not Fiction", I can pull up Wikipedia, browse through an article about the author, and give a reasonable answer in 5 minutes.

Then we go search databases for Lit Crit, if that's what's needed. I'm also constantly amazed, and pleased that I can find out the complete works list, swaths of biography, awards, etc... about even quite obscure authors. So don't knock Wikipedia for being overly geeky.

Remember, one reason some encyclopedias are limited in coverage has nothing to do with geekiness and everything to do with print cost and linear feet of shelf space.

 

[kensanata]

Like Gilladian, I find that geek entries are no problem. After all, if you found an article on X, you want to know about X, so why not give all the details? If you're not interested in X, you won't find it.

And I love to referrence Wikipedia from my blog for all kinds of things. Obscure martial arts weapons, techniques, tournaments, as well as supposedly destroyed editions of D&D modules, and so on.

It's true, some things don't belong on Wikipedia. But apparently my notion of "notability" goes beyond what many people expect. I don't mind all the D&D monsters on Wikipedia, for example.

 

[Serendipity]

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

w00t! I didn't know about the Jammer wiki. Thanks for the link.

 

[grodog]

We've been adding a lot of these articles to the Greyhawk Wiki, and help would be appreciated.

FYI Rip, I seem to recall reading some WG5 content on the CF! wiki, but I hadn't been aware of it at the time, as I added Maure Castle levels details to the WG5 entry @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordenkainen's_Fantastic_Adventure

Not sure if you're the right guy to poke, but figured it wouldn't hurt to ask while you're here