Subjectivity in the Wiki: Learn to Use It.

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

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.

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?

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

@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.

@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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Seems like someone trying to be funny.

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

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

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.

That guy should be banned from wiki submissions.

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.

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

bummer

yeah that's not what the wiki is for.

@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.

@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.

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

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

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

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

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

I love Dynasty Warriors. That is all.

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

@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.

@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.

@ZombiePie:

Really? Not even for the staff?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

@AlisterCat:

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

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

Pretty objective statement IMO

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.