Save Torg!

[Desdichado]

It's not just that page; every RPG related page I've looked at in the last few days has been tagged with the "noteworthy" thing.

How does one go about pointing out to the staff at wikipedia that estimates of current D&D players are at 6 million worldwide? It'd be nice to just get rid of all these rpg tags en masse.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Torg!

When Glasgow University Gaming Society went to the Student National rpg tournament in Bangor some time in the late 90s, that was our battle cry. No particular reason, it just sounds good. I suggested it should be "Chainsaw Warrior!" but no one agreed.

 

[Jim Hague]

Wikipedia shmikipedia. This is the same bunch of fun-loving go-getters who decided that this (a predominantly 3.5/d20) webforum does get its own page, but nuked the Dragonsfoot page.

Wikipedia operates at exactly the level one would expect it to given the nature of the "editors".

Y'know, if it wasn't for ENWorld, I'd have never even heard of Dragonsfoot, and I'm not primarily a d20 gamer. So much for notable.

That said, is anyone familiar with the process for reporting this sort of editorial abuse to Wikipedia's actual management? Provide a clear evidence trail (not difficult - the guy admits to specifically tagging RPG articles on his page there), I doubt they'd let these sort of shennanigans go on.

 

[pawsplay]

I tend to just "revert--improper tagging" until the editor blows a gasket and does something he's not supposed to. Or make some modest but productive changes and remove deletion tags, which is OK as far as I know.

 

[jdrakeh]

That said, is anyone familiar with the process for reporting this sort of editorial abuse to Wikipedia's actual management? Provide a clear evidence trail (not difficult - the guy admits to specifically tagging RPG articles on his page there), I doubt they'd let these sort of shennanigans go on.

That's the beauty failure of Wikipedia. There is no real quality control when it comes to volunteer/employee oversight. People can pretty much do as they please, provided that they make some half-assed effort to prop it up with a community approved template of some kind. This is why Wikipedia itself is not considered a valid and unbiased source of accurate information by professional researchers.

 

[Jim Hague]

That's the beauty failure of Wikipedia. There is no real quality control when it comes to volunteer/employee oversight. People can pretty much do as they please, provided that they make some half-assed effort to prop it up with a community approved template of some kind. This is why Wikipedia itself is not considered a valid and unbiased source of accurate information by professional researchers.

That's a shame. It's guys like Gavin there who do a lot to keep guys like me from diving in. Wiki's a great starting point, but it looks like it's even losing that baseline usability.

 

[mmu1]

That's a shame. It's guys like Gavin there who do a lot to keep guys like me from diving in. Wiki's a great starting point, but it looks like it's even losing that baseline usability.

Gavin... Heh.

That reminds me of a funny story - if anyone wants to see a great example of Wikipedia asshattery, look up the fights surrounding one guy's (Mike Sparks') attempt to convince the world that the M113 APC is colloquially called the "Gavin".

You see, it's all part of his brilliant scheme to replace virtually the whole US Army vehicle inventory (short of perhaps main battle tanks) with the M113s, possibly dismantling the USMC (which he was kicked out of) along the way.

The Wikipedia pages dealing with the subject have whole sections filled with Sparks talking to himself, praising his own brilliant ideas, and posting under multiple aliases to make it look like other people are agreeing with him.

Last I saw of him, he was putting stuff up at a site specializing in pictures of military armored vehicles crewed by furries and posting rants to accompany the pictures. It's amazing what one idiot with internet access can manage.

(oh, and just for the record - lest I inadvertantly help spread the meme - the M113 never had a nickname, either official or not)

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Gavin... Heh.

That reminds me of a funny story - if anyone wants to see a great example of Wikipedia asshattery, look up the fights surrounding one guy's (Mike Sparks') attempt to convince the world that the M113 APC is colloquially called the "Gavin".

You see, it's all part of his brilliant scheme to replace virtually the whole US Army vehicle inventory (short of perhaps main battle tanks) with the M113s, possibly dismantling the USMC (which he was kicked out of) along the way.

The Wikipedia pages dealing with the subject have whole sections filled with Sparks talking to himself, praising his own brilliant ideas, and posting under multiple aliases to make it look like other people are agreeing with him.

Last I saw of him, he was putting stuff up at a site specializing in pictures of military armored vehicles crewed by furries and posting rants to accompany the pictures. It's amazing what one idiot with internet access can manage.

(oh, and just for the record - lest I inadvertantly help spread the meme - the M113 never had a nickname, either official or not)

Sparks can be an asshat I know. Unfortunately his behavior kind of messes up a concept that has a few important core ideas that could do with some attention, leaving those of us who are attempting to get some attention to potentially valuable changes in a bad light via his interference. And the Gavin thing, well he idolizes Gen. Gavin who was responsible for some important theories of airborne warfare and would like to get something named after him. I don't disagree with that he just took it too far.

Last I saw of him, he was putting stuff up at a site specializing in pictures of military armored vehicles crewed by furries and posting rants to accompany the pictures. It's amazing what one idiot with internet access can manage

This on the other hand I have not seen any sign of and I generally hear it when he's up to his incidents. Are you sure it couldn't just be somebody else that took his misguidedness too seriously?

 

[Orius]

Wow, that does sound like an asshat.

I use Wikipedia, but only for certain things. I would never bother using it for something like political research, way WAY too many egos potentially going at in in massive edit wars and so on. I wouldn't know what articles to trust on contemporary politics, so I won't even bother. I don't edit the Wikipedia, and I don't keep up with the edits or any of the behind the site politicking. I sinply don't care, except for basically thinking that it's a good idea, but it needs enough good people behind it to keep it good.

Unfortunately, the good people are pretty much volunteers, and have only so much patience with asshats. And there's personal ego going on. I'm enough of an artiste that I'd get irritated if someone edited something I wrote that's within standards, and they're just being picky, so I don't bother with it. Honestly, I always do better alone in creative endeavors, and I usually don't like working in a group unless it's a small group and the other members have compatible personalities.

I do find it informative for obscure subjects that are lightly covered or ignored in more traditional sources. There's an incredible amount of information out there, and Wikipedia sometimes can bring it to light.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

You know, I used to donate money to Wikipedia... I have not done so since they started on their 'Notability' crusade. I decided that they were not notable enough to bother sending money. (It was actually during the time that they started deleting web comic entries left and right....)

The Auld Grump