Save Torg!

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ah, I don't think Wikipedia is that bad. As long as enough people that really know their stuff care, most of the information is good.

You shouldn't base anything professional you do on the information from Wikipedia, but it is a good starting point.
There have been some studies/tests comparing the quality of Wikipedia articles with the quality of "traditional" encyclopedia, and Wikipedia seemed to hold up very good (possibly better) against them. But you usually shouldn't use a encyclopedia in a science paper, either.

The information on Wikipedia has not much more validity then any other online information you can get for free.

If you are looking for more (possibly more reliable, too) information, looking up the sources on the bottom of the article is a very good start.
That, off course, is the problem with RPG articles - there are not enough secondary sources to them, since there seems to be not much in terms of publically available research on RPGs (or many other games.)

 

[Orius]

If you are looking for more (possibly more reliable, too) information, looking up the sources on the bottom of the article is a very good start.

There you go, there's lots of sources listed for some articles.

That, off course, is the problem with RPG articles - there are not enough secondary sources to them, since there seems to be not much in terms of publically available research on RPGs (or many other games.)

The problem with RPG articles is that someone reading it isn't going to be all that concerned about sources anyway, at least not as much as say, an article on some sort of scientific research. The geek articles on Wikipedia are all going to be pretty much of recreational and fan interest anyway, so IMO they're not going to need as many sources proving their information and so on.

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

I agree. As a result of quality control erosion at Wikipedia, I don't expect the entries to contain any more factually accurate information than a random page of Google searches on a given topic will. Granted, the Wikipedia information will usually be more focused than that provided by a random page of Google results on a given topic -- but more accurate? Not at all.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm pretty miffed at Wikipedia's 'notability' standards.

In my mind, the standard of a page's notability is whether or not people visit it. It shouldn't be whether or not some person - no matter the academic credentials - decides that the page meets his standards of what is worth reading and knowing about.

I find Wikipedia to be as biased and suspect a source of information as anything else - for everything but the sort of articles that are typically deemed not notable, and in these wikipedia tends to be by far the best and sometimes the only easily available reference..

It seems that there is a certain crowd of idiots that wants to perceive wikipedia's strength as its weakness.

Actually, while I wouldn't base any strong opinions on a wikipedia page alone, I find that's its pretty good summary information source. Generally any fight for control of the information is won by those that care most about the subject, and that those that care most about a subject tend to be the most knowledgable about it. To the extent that 'caring most' also generally implies bias, it also tends to be very predictable bias that's easily accounted for. Whereas, in the work of a single author whose relation to the subject material is unknown, who knows in what direction the bias goes. Worse come to worse in wiki, you can always track the changes and the discussion and actually click on and follow the links to get a feel for what is really being debated and what evidence there is on either side (if any). With a book, unless you are well read, you often don't know what the contrary positions might be and you have to take the writer's word for it (barring extensive research) that the cited material is worth citing and actually says what the writer says it does.

 

[Imperialus]

I like this one. Apparently the Shadowrun Wiki is too short?

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

:\

 

[Glyfair]

I like this one. Apparently the Shadowrun Wiki is too short?

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

:\

The lead is too short. You have two brief paragraphs for a 15 page article. They want a decent summary of the article and I have to admit, it really doesn't have that.

 

[Desdichado]

I find Wikipedia to be as biased and suspect a source of information as anything else - for everything but the sort of articles that are typically deemed not notable, and in these wikipedia tends to be by far the best and sometimes the only easily available reference..

It seems that there is a certain crowd of idiots that wants to perceive wikipedia's strength as its weakness.

Exactly. This is exactly what wikipedia is good for, and they're trying to excise it? Bah, I say. Bah.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Well, Torg is no longer showing up as an AfD, and its AfD page is even gone. So that seems safe for now.

Also, the Jack-Merridew-was-a-sockpuppet thing is going to throw a huge wrench into the anti-RPG works; anyone new who works to remove RPG articles must now prove that they aren't a sockpuppet themselves. Furthermore, any of Jack's tags are now equally suspect as being placed in bad faith. Anyone attempting to replace them will need to come up with a new argument.

 

[Goobermunch]

Well, Torg is no longer showing up as an AfD, and its AfD page is even gone. So that seems safe for now.

Also, the Jack-Merridew-was-a-sockpuppet thing is going to throw a huge wrench into the anti-RPG works; anyone new who works to remove RPG articles must now prove that they aren't a sockpuppet themselves. Furthermore, any of Jack's tags are now equally suspect as being placed in bad faith. Anyone attempting to replace them will need to come up with a new argument.

It's no longer AfD because I edited Gavin's edits out. I just do that now. If I see one on a page I've reached, I assume that the relevant information is notable (otherwise, why would I be looking for it).

They can ban my IP address. I'll just get another one. If they want to ban one of the largest ISPs in the country, they can do that too. I'll just edit from work. I like wikipedia, but I have no respect for the fools who are running it like their own personal sandbox.

--G