+  RHDN Forum Archive
|-+  Romhacking
| |-+  ROM Hacking Discussion
| | |-+  wikipedia deletes fan translation article
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
Author Topic: wikipedia deletes fan translation article  (Read 4996 times)
javiskefka
Guest
« Reply #75 on: July 14, 2007, 01:38:24 pm »
I think the dedicated wiki would be useful mostly to people within the "scene", or people with a deep interest in the topic, so that could definitely be worthwhile.  In fact it would be an entire encyclopedia, so it would have a much larger scope.  I'm not totally sure what advantage making this wiki would have over the database here, though. 

On the other hand, an article on wikipedia can attract notice from people who just happen to click into the article from somewhere else, or who look up the topic wanting to know some information about it.  Because of the difference in audience, the article on wikipedia should have a smaller scope, but serve as a launching point for sources of deeper information.

Here's some of what we can shoot for, from Wikipedia:Featured article criteria
Quote
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

   1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
          * (a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
          * (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
          * (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
          * (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias; see neutral point of view.
          * (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; reversions of vandalism and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
   2. It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes:
          * (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
          * (b) a system of hierarchical headings;
          * (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and
          * (d) consistently formatted inline citations, using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
   3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
   4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
« Last Edit: July 14, 2007, 01:43:35 pm by javiskefka »
badwikipedia
Guest
« Reply #76 on: July 14, 2007, 02:55:31 pm »
Quote from: Maegra on July 13, 2007, 09:56:52 pm
wouldn't is be self promotion to edit anything on your own wiki?
If a member of RPGe added to an RPGe article "RPGe is cool", that'd be a problem.

If a member added "[insert name here] joined after being invited by [insert someone elses name here]", I don't see how that'd be a problem.  Atleast on the Wikia hosted rom hacking wiki.  On wikipedia, it'd be a problem, I think, but that's why people have suggested we move away from wikipedia.
javiskefka
Guest
« Reply #77 on: July 14, 2007, 03:17:20 pm »
There are guidelines for Conflict of Interest on wikipedia.

If you look at the history for the wikipedia article on the Galbijim wiki, most of the edits have been done by one of the admins at Galbijim.  There's nothing wrong with making edits on an article that you're personally involved with, but you just have to be willing to consider that you may have a conflict of interest, and shouldn't crowd out the viewpoints of others.
badwikipedia
Guest
« Reply #78 on: July 14, 2007, 04:58:31 pm »
Quote from: javiskefka on July 14, 2007, 03:17:20 pm
There are guidelines for Conflict of Interest on wikipedia.

If you look at the history for the wikipedia article on the Galbijim wiki, most of the edits have been done by one of the admins at Galbijim.  There's nothing wrong with making edits on an article that you're personally involved with, but you just have to be willing to consider that you may have a conflict of interest, and shouldn't crowd out the viewpoints of others.
Say Dark Force of DeJap decided to write a document detailing DeJap's history, as he knew it.  Then say Tomato came along and wanted to add some information.  He could create a new document, but then DeJap's history wouldn't be in any one consolidated place - it'd be spread out over multiple documents.  With a wiki, however, you could have it in one consolidated place.  Sure, Tomato might overemphasize his contributions, but the wonderful thing about wiki's is that Dark Force or whomever else could come along and reedit it to reflect the accuracy of those contributions more easily.  Or perhaps they could be discussed on the Talk page.  Either way, it'd be more convenient then creating a "response to Dark Force's history" and a "response to the response of Dark Force's history", etc.

On wikipedia, this wouldn't be allowed because it would violate wikipedia's reliable sources policy, or whatever.  Dark Force could just create a *.txt file, host it some where, and cite it on wikipedia, but that's, all in all, more of a hassle then going to a wiki page, editing it, and saving the changes.  Plus, there's no guarantee that wikipedia would even consider that to be a reliable enough source, anyway.

Also, frankly, I think the whole concept of "conflict of interest" is an ad hominem.  Crowding out the viewpoints of others is going to make for a biased article regardless of whether or not the person doing it is personally involved with the articles subject matter.  Atleast imho.
-Bent-
Guest
« Reply #79 on: July 14, 2007, 10:57:41 pm »
datacrystal.org could probably use some articles on ROM hacking itself. It's already got offsets and such for a few games.
Kitsune Sniper
Guest
« Reply #80 on: July 15, 2007, 12:25:39 am »
Quote from: -Bent- on July 14, 2007, 10:57:41 pm
datacrystal.org could probably use some articles on ROM hacking itself. It's already got offsets and such for a few games.
We're not discussing the act of romhacking, though. We're discussing the history of the groups involved in the process (which may have some overlap, anyway).
Lashiec
Guest
« Reply #81 on: July 15, 2007, 11:50:20 am »
I told ya, it's better either to rewrite the article on the Wikipedia or ask Nightcrawler for hosting some kind of information here. Setting up a new wiki for something small (in my opinion) it's going a bit too far (unless you want to create a really well documented database, like "The Romhacking Scene Encyclopedia").

Not to mention in both options you'll be getting more traffic than with a new wiki that you'll have to promote. After all, this is something you do to inform people about what all the romhacking thing is all about, not an insider document.

EDIT: Some typos...
« Last Edit: July 15, 2007, 12:00:42 pm by Lashiec »
KaioShin
Guest
« Reply #82 on: July 15, 2007, 11:53:32 am »
Quote from: Lashiec on July 15, 2007, 11:50:20 am
After all, this is something you do to inform people about what all the romhacking thing is all about, not an insider document.

That's good reason to rewrite the wikipedia article instead of creating a new one here.
joshua s
Guest
« Reply #83 on: July 16, 2007, 12:52:13 am »
I think it would be a good idea to *try* to keep some sort of an article on Wikipedia, for the previously stated reason of WP having a much wider audience. Great advertisement for the 'scene.' Of course, if it continues to prove too much of a hassle down the road, screw it.

Since it doesn't look like the 'pedians will stand for having the independent biographies/histories of hacking/translation groups on Wikipedia itself, it needs to be housed _somewhere_. Unless no one really cares about losing all that wonderful, glorious history when said hacker quits/kicks the bucket. Wink

Question: What the heck is a 'fanslation'? I, for one, have never heard this term and like it about as much as wretch-worthy 'words' like 'vlogging' and 'blogosphere.' Just my .02. Tongue
« Last Edit: July 16, 2007, 01:04:07 am by joshua s »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]  


Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC