Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
hong said: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.