Giant Bomb and Wikipedia: Some thoughts

I've just said in a thread that I have posted two "wiki-style" articles that are currently pending submission. But then I realised that my Giant Bomb submissions differ rather a lot from the types of articles found in wikipedia, in that they are not wholly impartial. Wikipedia, for example, isn't going to have the word "Boooiinnggg!" as a caption for an image of the pogoing Scrooge McDuck in Duck Tales, is it? However, I do think that such things should be allowed on Giant Bomb. Giant Bomb should be striving to be different from wikipedia. Wikipedia already exists- if you want wiki-style articles then go to wikipedia where there is sure to be a wiki-style article on the game of your choice.

I suppose the question here for my fellow Giant Bomb counterparts is this: Is there scope for creating articles which, alongside offering spot-on technical information about a game, can also veer into slightly less formal territory, with subtle attempts at humour and a more artistic literary style that isn't as stuffy or formal as wikipedia? I've made two articles which I hope encapsulate the latter (Faxanadu and Duck Tales) and we'll see in a few day's time whether they've been accepted or not. I just don't see the point in striving to write wiki articles here on Giant Bomb, when we can just go to wikipedia itself for that sort of thing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want the articles here to be filled with silly, snarky comments and immature posturing, but we shouldn't worry about being as rigid and as formulaic as the type of fare found on wikipedia. We should be looking to incorporate the factual accuracy of wikipedia along with the love of games that a community such as our own so obviously has in abundance.


Start the Conversation
9 Comments
Posted by Yatesy

I've just said in a thread that I have posted two "wiki-style" articles that are currently pending submission. But then I realised that my Giant Bomb submissions differ rather a lot from the types of articles found in wikipedia, in that they are not wholly impartial. Wikipedia, for example, isn't going to have the word "Boooiinnggg!" as a caption for an image of the pogoing Scrooge McDuck in Duck Tales, is it? However, I do think that such things should be allowed on Giant Bomb. Giant Bomb should be striving to be different from wikipedia. Wikipedia already exists- if you want wiki-style articles then go to wikipedia where there is sure to be a wiki-style article on the game of your choice.

I suppose the question here for my fellow Giant Bomb counterparts is this: Is there scope for creating articles which, alongside offering spot-on technical information about a game, can also veer into slightly less formal territory, with subtle attempts at humour and a more artistic literary style that isn't as stuffy or formal as wikipedia? I've made two articles which I hope encapsulate the latter (Faxanadu and Duck Tales) and we'll see in a few day's time whether they've been accepted or not. I just don't see the point in striving to write wiki articles here on Giant Bomb, when we can just go to wikipedia itself for that sort of thing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want the articles here to be filled with silly, snarky comments and immature posturing, but we shouldn't worry about being as rigid and as formulaic as the type of fare found on wikipedia. We should be looking to incorporate the factual accuracy of wikipedia along with the love of games that a community such as our own so obviously has in abundance.


Posted by TestamentUK

I hope so. I think things like that will be what seperates the two. If the pages on Giant Bomb are to be written in the same way as the pages for wikipedia then what is the point in its existence? The facts are the same, so regardless of who writes them, such and such a game was made in certain year - end of story. While wikipedia is focussed on providing factual information for its general array of users,(information that must be refferenced and backed up from sources), Giant Bomb is a site for gamers whose information is moderated by other gamers and not by its sources. Yes the factual information needs to be presented and in a sensible manner; but I hope to see some humour, outside references etc. within articles on Giant Bomb, so it is less of an encyclopedia, and more of a collaborative database, if that makes sense? Wikipedia doesn't host reviews and related blog posts, while Giant Bomb does. Again it comes down to who is submitting the information, and who is reading it: people who play and love games. I also thinks it makes sense to try and emulate the humerous, light hearted-ness displayed in the staff blog.

So yeah, I totally agree with your closing statement about mixing the factual accuracy with the game-loving community. I hope that such things will be appearing on game pages across the site.

Posted by Yatesy

I'm slightly worried about a few of my submissions, in that I have written them in a kinfd of half-jokey, wry manner, which could easily be construed by a sleep-deprived Brad Shoemaker or Ryan Davis as a little bit too off-the-cuff and not viable as an entry, and so it'll be interesting to see if my submissions get accepted over the next few days. And if they do, then it will be proof that the editors at Giant Bomb totally agree with me, and that would totally rock!

Posted by SoSerious

I think if I know anything about the creators of this site, they don't want rigid, uninspired descriptions on all their pages, so I think you'll be OK.

Posted by JonDavis

Be objective in wiki-pages.

Save the humor for the captions.

That is all.





Posted by Yatesy

Oh I agree, Jon, that we should be objective when writing the articles, and not allow our personal feelings towards the game to get in the way of displaying the facts in a coherent manner. I do think though that a level of literary flair, whereby  the writer draws upon their own unique writing style, can be employed at Giant Bomb. This wouldn't necessarily be appropriate in a wiki article where, like an encyclopaedia, the artciles should basically all have the exact same formal and formulaic tone; whereby all of the pages could essentially have been written by the same peson. I think that a slightly less formal tone can be allowed at the Bomb, so long as the writer has the skill to pull it off without sounding like a dick, and without sacrificing technical accuracy. If my Faxanadu article gets approved you'll see what I'm talking about. ;)

Posted by JonDavis

I totally agree. I just meant that all information should be presented in a fairly professional style, and that it should be presented in an easy-to-read fashion. The "flair" shouldn't hinder readability.

Posted by Yatesy

Looks like we're in agreement then, my friend!

Posted by JonDavis

*high five*