Author
|
Topic: wikipedia deletes fan translation article (Read 4997 times)
|
RedComet
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2007, 01:10:43 pm » |
|
(And hey, no doubleposting! I wonder if mods can ban an admin...?)
Nope. The option doesn't show up on NC's profile page like it does on, say, yours.  |
|
|
|
|
creaothceann
Guest
|
|
« Reply #46 on: July 13, 2007, 01:11:48 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lashiec
Guest
|
|
« Reply #47 on: July 13, 2007, 02:31:03 pm » |
|
I think what makes me angry is that the article in question supposably doesn't share a "world view" of fan translations. What world view is what I'd like to know? Fan translations are, quite simply, something that fans of video games do in their free time. Is the rest of the world doing something different?
I suppose they're talking about the lack of discussion about the scene in other countries, which is something I agree with. The most funny thing is how everyone says that Wikipedia is shit anyway, but everyone makes such a big fuss about the article being deleted.
Because it turns the whole site into something even more shitty. Nobody likes information being deleted, even if you can recover it later, because it turns the whole thing into a rat race, nobody wins. Which is something quite bad, not only for the people doing the hard work, but also for the ones searching for information on a subject. I know that this the price to pay when something goes mainstream (trolls ahoy!), but I found funny that while these people is trying to shut down articles, because they're incomplete/not encyclopedic, some other guys are constantly throwing information out of other articles. That said, I'm with Nightcrawler and Kyrael. As a frontend for external information, Wikipedia is excellent. I have used it this year to do some research for class, and with quite good results judging by my marks. Until something better takes its place (I'll cheer Citizendium) at least people could do their best to make the site a bit better, but instead we have to lose time discussing with childish bureaucrats. Kitsune, would you happen to have a relative at the New York Times or all the other mass media mentioned as well? |
|
|
|
|
StarBeamAlpha
Guest
|
|
« Reply #48 on: July 13, 2007, 02:51:33 pm » |
|
Well it looks like I have 'won teh interwebs' "i concede this round to you. nice job Misterdiscreet 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)" I will work on rewriting the article to include sources from these: http://donut.parodius.com/?func=other&cat=magscans and the retro gamer scans. I need the page number of this one: http://donut.parodius.com/stuff/magscans/edge0503.jpgDoes anyone have any other magazine articles/sources we can include? Or have this book "actually been discussed in published works, e.g. Carless, Simon (2004). Gaming Hacks. O'Reilly, p. 265-7. ISBN 0596007140. , which even mentioned some individual fan translation groups." |
|
|
|
|
Nightcrawler
Guest
|
|
« Reply #49 on: July 13, 2007, 02:55:17 pm » |
|
NC:
The problem might be more rampant on topics that don't rely on (or have) so much hard facts.
(And hey, no doubleposting! I wonder if mods can ban an admin...?)
No one in the history of this site has ever been reprimanded for having two posts one after another responding to entirely different people and different, unrelated portions of conversation. |
|
|
|
|
Talbain
Guest
|
|
« Reply #50 on: July 13, 2007, 04:46:17 pm » |
|
Eh.. Talbain, Wikipedia has it's large share of problems, but I still find plenty of CORRECT and valid information there. I certainly wouldn't call it useless at all. It's also the largest one stop source of information on everything that I know of. Why sift through Google results when the answer to many questions can be found at Wikipedia in 30 seconds?
In fact, I still find MUCH more correct information than incorrect information. In fact, I just did some professional lengthy research on Saturated Vapor Pressure, the many equations used, and utilizing it in calculating specific humidity. Many sources were given. And the information there agreed with other well known sources like the NOAA for example. I have also conducted research on materials used in resistors, capacitors, surface mount packages, and all sorts of electronics related topics.
Non professionally, I've used wikipedia many times for programming language information, software available to do certain things etc. if nothing else, the sources cited on wikipedia are useful.
There are plenty of valid and useful things to find on Wikipedia. Don't condemn it in it's entirety because it has some significant problems in certain areas.
Yes... I suppose you could go there to find encyclopedic information... the problem is that if you want encyclopedic information, there are sites like Encyclopedia Brittanica which are not only peer reviewed by multiple professionals in respective fields, but also a vastly superior amount and type of information and knowledge. Articles like "ORLY?" also don't count as something that's worthy of including in an encyclopedia. If the encyclopedia can't even stand that relatively low standards that most other encyclopedic references go through, what is the point in looking at the information, when there's better information easily available that can also be found on the internet? Why not condemn a site's generally poor information when put up comparatively to other sites claiming similar content? Edit: What I think would or should be done about stuff like fan translation, at least in terms of the article, is actually that someone needs to clean the article up and offer, at the very least, online sources. No, for something that is unofficial you cannot offer many official sources and the reason is obvious. Fansubbing is likely similar, it's just that they likely claimed certain internet sources as actual sources and no one said anything (in general, I'm troubled by internet sources because of the usual holes in the information, but that's a personal feeling, it doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be used). Also, NC, I've also used Wikipedia in the past for information gathering, but only as an aside to gather basic information on the subject at hand, assuming it fits with my other sources. I never cite it or use it any actual work, because I know that the professional community in general does not respect the website due to the fact that anyone can add content, delete content, and so forth. Because there's no standard, the information quality can be inordinately high or inordinately low, but it's usually the latter. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 13, 2007, 04:57:17 pm by Talbain »
|
|
|
|
Kyrael Seraphine
Guest
|
|
« Reply #51 on: July 13, 2007, 05:18:20 pm » |
|
Also, NC, I've also used Wikipedia in the past for information gathering, but only as an aside to gather basic information on the subject at hand, assuming it fits with my other sources. I never cite it or use it any actual work Which is exactly my point! Huzzah, eureka, naked fat greek in a bath. |
|
|
|
|
Talbain
Guest
|
|
« Reply #52 on: July 13, 2007, 06:15:34 pm » |
|
Also, NC, I've also used Wikipedia in the past for information gathering, but only as an aside to gather basic information on the subject at hand, assuming it fits with my other sources. I never cite it or use it any actual work Which is exactly my point! Huzzah, eureka, naked fat greek in a bath. Ah, sorry Kyrael, I didn't see your post. |
|
|
|
|
byuu
Guest
|
|
« Reply #53 on: July 13, 2007, 06:16:20 pm » |
|
Man, misterdiscreet ...
I really do feel sorry for him. I can't imagine how psychologically damaged you have to be, to have absolutely nothing better to do than to go around engaging in pointless arguments and trying to piss people off -- and in fact even brag about it! The poor guy, someone needs to reach out to him as a friend. Let him know that there are far more productive and enjoyable things to be doing with ones' life.
But seriously, I know this from personal experience. Do not engage him on this. He wants the attention. He wants the article deleted? Fine. Wikipedia has never been a credible source of information anyway, and people like this won't ever give up. If you get caught up fighting and arguing with people like this, you'll just continue to grow bitter until you find yourself behaving just like them. Trust me, I've been there before, and it happened to me.
The best thing to do is to move the information here and forget about this guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Maegra
Guest
|
|
« Reply #54 on: July 13, 2007, 06:46:29 pm » |
|
is anyone going to go in there and fix it up? it does need a drastic overhaul, i'd do it, but last time i tried to edit a wiki (Satoshi Urushihara, added ASV to his list of games) i screwed the whole thing up.
|
|
|
|
|
Kitsune Sniper
Guest
|
|
« Reply #55 on: July 13, 2007, 06:54:05 pm » |
|
The best thing to do is to move the information here and forget about this guy. ... Or start a wiki of our own. That's what Wikia is for. We can add as much stuff as we can there, and we'll be sure it's mostly accurate because -we'll- be in charge of it. |
|
|
|
|
InVerse
Guest
|
|
« Reply #56 on: July 13, 2007, 06:56:20 pm » |
|
I can't imagine how psychologically damaged you have to be, to have absolutely nothing better to do than to go around engaging in pointless arguments and trying to piss people off -- and in fact even brag about it! This really seems like something I should comment on, but I won't. Unless this counts as a comment. |
|
|
|
|
Spinner 8
Guest
|
|
« Reply #57 on: July 13, 2007, 07:12:19 pm » |
|
... Or start a wiki of our own. That's what Wikia is for. We can add as much stuff as we can there, and we'll be sure it's mostly accurate because -we'll- be in charge of it.
Wow, I was just about to suggest that. I don't know what wikia is, but I'd love to see a user-controlled site that dealt with the history of the entire community, on a site whose article on Princess Sally Acorn wasn't longer than Francis Ford Coppola's. Preferably a site owned by someone in the community, of course. |
|
|
|
|
Talbain
Guest
|
|
« Reply #58 on: July 13, 2007, 07:20:54 pm » |
|
I've got plenty of webspace if someone wants to make a website.
|
|
|
|
|
Lashiec
Guest
|
|
« Reply #59 on: July 13, 2007, 07:26:15 pm » |
|
I don't know what wikia is, but I'd love to see a user-controlled site that dealt with the history of the entire community, on a site whose article on Princess Sally Acorn wasn't longer than Francis Ford Coppola's.  Incredible. I never imagined such thing. But I shouldn't be so surprised. The articles about popular culture are seriously lacking, and about rock music (for example) I have far more information sitting in magazines in the shelves that in the entire site. I won't comment about Wikipedia in other languages because...  Oh, new post. I think that the wiki would be going a bit far, but a reform of the article that Nightcrawler wrote combined with the Wikipedia information could be hosted (and peer reviewed) in Romhacking. What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
|
RHDN Forum Archive
