• 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

So I was just viewing the page for Dynasty Warriors Next when I noticed someone had made a rather stupid edit to it:

Click to view the idiocy with better clarity.

I don't know who added that snarky little note (well, I have a good guess as to who did, but I won't name names here). But the point is that subjective snark is not meant for the wiki. It doesn't matter if you personally don't like the game; that's no excuse to go about being a wiki vandal. If you feel like editorializing, write a blog post or something and don't be a dick.

#2 Posted by Wunder_ (1171 posts) -

I don't get your title, you're saying people should use subjectivity in the wiki but not snarkily? I guess that kinda makes sense? But I thought the whole point of the wiki was to be as objective as possible?

#3 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

I don't think it is subjective to say a lot of people despise Dynasty Warriors.

#4 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Wunder_ said:

I don't get your title, you're saying people should use subjectivity in the wiki but not snarkily? I guess that kinda makes sense? But I thought the whole point of the wiki was to be as objective as possible?

Gah. I meant objectivity in the title. I haven't had my morning coffee yet.

#5 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@LordXavierBritish said:

I don't think it is subjective to say a lot of people despise Dynasty Warriors.

I don't think it's objective to say that the games much despised or pointless.

#6 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -
@Hailinel: That kind of shit can be irritating, I agree. A wiki is there to inform, and not be a place to oust your personal disregard for said wiki page.
#7 Edited by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Yep totally agree with you here that this shit is dumb....it makes people perceive the wiki as a joke.

#8 Posted by N7 (3666 posts) -

AGREED. If I gave a shit who disliked Dynasty Warriors, I would make a website called "giantbombforpeoplewhodislikedynastywarriors" and the wiki would be filled with an unfunny distaste on all Dynasty Warriors pages across the board.
 
This is not that site. Therefore this is unwelcome and completely distasteful. Shame on you, whoever you are.

#9 Posted by EuanDewar (5098 posts) -

For a second then I thought it was Jeff who made that edit. Be fucking funny if it was.

#10 Posted by Galiant (2195 posts) -

@Hailinel: I get what you're saying, but drink your coffee first next time =P

#11 Posted by DocHaus (1374 posts) -

I'd say do what I did with Mindjack and Damnation: bottle up your anger at those titles inside while you write the most objective wiki info possible, and then let the anger out in a scathing review that maybe a few people will read.

#12 Posted by BeachThunder (12390 posts) -

=( This is the main problem with the wiki - people treat it like a blog or an avenue for jokes.

#13 Posted by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

Looking at the other people who edited that page, I'd say that there's a non-zero chance that Jeff typed that.

#14 Posted by AlisterCat (5711 posts) -

Seems like someone trying to be funny.

#15 Posted by AlexW00d (6426 posts) -

However much that shouldn't be done, that's hilarious.

#16 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -
@Ravenlight

Looking at the other people who edited that page, I'd say that there's a non-zero chance that Jeff typed that.

It wasn't Jeff. He doesn't make edits like that. I believe he was the one that created the page, however.
#17 Posted by President_Barackbar (3474 posts) -

I do actually think that Dynasty Warriors is a pointless button masher. However, that doesn't mean that this was right. The wiki is not a place for people to voice their opinion of a game.

#18 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -

That guy should be banned from wiki submissions.

#19 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

What really sucks is that I think I know who was responsible, but I don't have solid proof and I don't want to take an accusation to the mods that could end up being wrong.

#20 Posted by natetodamax (19219 posts) -

That's pretty bad. Thankfully that stuff doesn't happen too often.

#21 Posted by Slag (4842 posts) -

bummer

yeah that's not what the wiki is for.

#22 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12101 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

What really sucks is that I think I know who was responsible, but I don't have solid proof and I don't want to take an accusation to the mods that could end up being wrong.

Having not really edited the wiki much in recent history (besides my inexplicable authorship of the Disciples 1 page) I have to ask: Is there some sort of history tracker or otherwise that allows one to check various edits and see who added what to the page? Because that seems like it would be useful.

#23 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@ArbitraryWater said:

@Hailinel said:

What really sucks is that I think I know who was responsible, but I don't have solid proof and I don't want to take an accusation to the mods that could end up being wrong.

Having not really edited the wiki much in recent history (besides my inexplicable authorship of the Disciples 1 page) I have to ask: Is there some sort of history tracker or otherwise that allows one to check various edits and see who added what to the page? Because that seems like it would be useful.

I believe that the moderators have access to one, but I'm not sure how effective it is or how much history is retained.

#24 Posted by david3cm (636 posts) -

I think that is quite an accurate assessment of Dynasty Warriors.

#25 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2699 posts) -

It's true, but in this case it's actually 100% accurate so I'd let it slide.

#26 Posted by JackSukeru (5962 posts) -

I feel like someone needs to be smacked on the fingers for pulling stupid shit like that.

#27 Posted by StarvingGamer (8544 posts) -

When I eventually lose it completely and become a serial killer, it's going to be people like this that I target first.

#28 Posted by BoG (5192 posts) -

Just to settle the little argument going on in here: This is not acceptable in the wiki.

#29 Posted by DonChipotle (2838 posts) -

I love Dynasty Warriors. That is all.

Online
#30 Posted by Spoonman671 (4767 posts) -

Yeah, that's pretty lame, but I have better things to be upset about.

#31 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Spoonman671 said:

Yeah, that's pretty lame, but I have better things to be upset about.

There are more important things in life, true, but it's obnoxious having to deal with this.

#32 Posted by ZombiePie (5746 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@ArbitraryWater said:

@Hailinel said:

What really sucks is that I think I know who was responsible, but I don't have solid proof and I don't want to take an accusation to the mods that could end up being wrong.

Having not really edited the wiki much in recent history (besides my inexplicable authorship of the Disciples 1 page) I have to ask: Is there some sort of history tracker or otherwise that allows one to check various edits and see who added what to the page? Because that seems like it would be useful.

I believe that the moderators have access to one, but I'm not sure how effective it is or how much history is retained.

There is no such thing.

Moderator
#33 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@ZombiePie:

Really? Not even for the staff?

#34 Edited by Mr_Skeleton (5154 posts) -

People think they are funny but they are not, better not try to encourage them to "learn" how to do it. Just fill the wiki with facts and don't be too dry, there is no need to add anything else. I will admit there are some people who know how to do it but you are probably not one of them so leave it to them.

#35 Posted by bobafettjm (1472 posts) -

I, too hate this kind of thing and always remove it whenever I see it.

#36 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

I have run across several pages that have non-objective opinions on the wiki, like the sims 3 pets page. the Cliffs of Dover, and a lot of times they are just people trying to help but they are doing it wrong.

#37 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

Bumping this thread, because I felt it necessary after I encountered two articles that were basically vandalized with the amount of subjective content that had been inserted into them.

#38 Edited by triple07 (1198 posts) -

I was really confused with your title, but I agree that stuff like that just makes the Wiki look bad. Also didn't realize this thread was months old when I posted.

#39 Posted by Orbitz89 (229 posts) -

@AlisterCat:

I got a good laugh when i read that line in the wiki i must admit lol.

#40 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@triple07 said:

I was really confused with your title, but I agree that stuff like that just makes the Wiki look bad. Also didn't realize this thread was months old when I posted.

Yeah, that title is a typo. Can't do anything about it, unfortunately.

#41 Edited by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

I noticed a lot of people try to make snarky, idiotic blurbs......its dumb and I end up re-writing a ton of blurbs because of it....I honestly hope Dave gets rid of blurbs entirely with the redesign.

#42 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Guided_By_Tigers said:

I noticed a lot of people try to make snarky, idiotic blurbs......its dumb and I end up re-writing a ton of blurbs because of it....I honestly hope Dave gets rid of blurbs entirely with the redesign.

Doubtful. They're meant to be simple, high-level descriptions of games and incredibly useful when not written poorly.

#43 Posted by redefaulted (2829 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Guided_By_Tigers said:

I noticed a lot of people try to make snarky, idiotic blurbs......its dumb and I end up re-writing a ton of blurbs because of it....I honestly hope Dave gets rid of blurbs entirely with the redesign.

Doubtful. They're meant to be simple, high-level descriptions of games and incredibly useful when not written poorly.

Things like this are seriously why we can't have nice things. Also, what's a blurb? Maybe I've seen it and I'm being a complete idiot right now.

Online
#44 Posted by Brendan (8117 posts) -

This kind of stuff, while not as bad as this particularly egregious example, is so prolific in the Wiki that after trying to correct it a couple of times I gave up. I once went through every Harry Potter title just to delete phrases such as "cash-in" that were in the headers.

#45 Posted by JackOhara (227 posts) -

Pretty objective statement IMO

#46 Posted by bobafettjm (1472 posts) -

I really hate it when I see lines like "one of the worst games ever made" or things about how a game isn't fun.

#47 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@ck1nd said:

@Hailinel said:

@Guided_By_Tigers said:

I noticed a lot of people try to make snarky, idiotic blurbs......its dumb and I end up re-writing a ton of blurbs because of it....I honestly hope Dave gets rid of blurbs entirely with the redesign.

Doubtful. They're meant to be simple, high-level descriptions of games and incredibly useful when not written poorly.

Things like this are seriously why we can't have nice things. Also, what's a blurb? Maybe I've seen it and I'm being a complete idiot right now.

They're the blocks of text at the top of page articles. They have a fifty-word limit and are meant to summarize the page's topic.

@bobafettjm said:

I really hate it when I see lines like "one of the worst games ever made" or things about how a game isn't fun.

Yeah. Unfortunately, people don't realize or don't care that that sort of commentary isn't meant for the wiki. If they want to blast a game like that, they should be writing a user review.

#48 Posted by LordAndrew (14430 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

They're the blocks of text at the top of page articles. They have a fifty-word limit and are meant to summarize the page's topic.

My favourite thing about the limit is that it's neither informed nor enforced during page creation, creating problems later if it happens to be too long. Note to Dave and company: fix that.

#49 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2778 posts) -

Isn't there a trusted team of wiki contributors to approve this kind of stuff so that this nonsense doesn't even make it to the game page? If not, there should be.

#50 Posted by LordAndrew (14430 posts) -

@Lunar_Aura said:

Isn't there a trusted team of wiki contributors to approve this kind of stuff so that this nonsense doesn't even make it to the game page? If not, there should be.

The "trusted team" is bypassed once you've obtained 1,000 pointbucks. It's not hard to reach that point without learning proper standards.