The venerable Battlefield franchise returns for its second console-only outing, this time with a fleshed out single player campaign and a new multiplayer game mode, Gold Rush.
Hey, I'm all for rewriting wikis that are poorly done, but who just came into the BFBC wiki and thought their shit smelled so much like roses that they basically wiped everyone else's work and replaced it with their own? Personally, I had done a quality detailing of all of the multiplayer classes, unlocks and gametypes and someone just completely overwrote that with a much less easy to read essay-type description. Plus, I know other people had their work overwritten as well.
@Roflwaffles: First, how did you get that info? And second, I just removed an image from the page because it was causing strange formatting issues. I am not the "culprit"
Whoever it was just needs to realize that their content isn't the end all be all of quality. The current content isn't bad at all; however, neither was the content that was there. The much better thing to do would be to add on and edit where necessary, not outright replace. Again, in some cases this would be appropriate, but I know I can write, and I know what was there was certainly good enough to remain.
I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over."
If it really was bad then you can contact a mod for restoration. It happened with the Persona 4 page; the whole page was erased and essentially vandalized. A mod got to restore all of the previous information and the guy was dealt with.
" I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over." "
" I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over." "
I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something.
" I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over." "
So..... what would you do if I went to that page, erased everything you wrote, and replaced it with my own work? Erasing all the work someone put into a page isn't right unless it's horribly inaccurate.
I've done that with several of the Mega Man games (mostly the X series). Most of the time, the information on the page isn't wrong, they just have horrendous spelling and grammar. So, I fix that and add anything I don't see. Is that wrong?
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
Yeah, locking down information like that could be effective. But it would have to be specific parts of a page, not all of it. Today, there are always things that can change in games (DLC being the most prominent) so we would need to be able to also edit extra information in with old, accurate information being secured.
" I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over." "
I just checked all of the the wiki tasks and there was no mention of it. Clearly, whoever it was was making an executive decision on their own. Again, I know what was there. It didn't suck.
What's there now is good. It adds some stuff, but it also missing some stuff that was there and in parts is much less convenient to read. If I want to read up on multiplayer details I want to be able to jump to what I want, not read a damn novel. Again, add and edit, don't replace.
" I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over." "
So..... what would you do if I went to that page, erased everything you wrote, and replaced it with my own work? Erasing all the work someone put into a page isn't right unless it's horribly inaccurate. "
" I've done that with several of the Mega Man games (mostly the X series). Most of the time, the information on the page isn't wrong, they just have horrendous spelling and grammar. So, I fix that and add anything I don't see. Is that wrong? "
No, that's perfectly fine. That's exactly what you should do.
" I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over." "
So..... what would you do if I went to that page, erased everything you wrote, and replaced it with my own work? Erasing all the work someone put into a page isn't right unless it's horribly inaccurate. "
Again, I only wiped the page because the wiki task said to. But well...it was a pretty poorly written page anyway, which is why there was a wiki task for it in the first place, but that's not the point.
I don't know what the Battlefield page looked like, but if this editor did a better job, more power to him. Whatever needs to be done to create a better wiki is what needs to be done, feelings aside. Everybody thinks the page they edited is the best of the best, but sometimes you just have to accept that somebody else did a better job at editing the page. Now if a page is written up pretty well, full formatting isn't always necessary, but you get what I mean, right? If a person can do a better job, it's a better job. Don't let feelings get in the way of trying to make a better wiki for the site.
Now, I'm not really talking about the BF:BC page because I never saw it, so I have no opinion on it, I'm just talking about wiki pages in general.
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
That's a good idea. "
Perhaps, but what if someone wanted to add something valid and interesting to the already well written content?
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
Yeah, locking down information like that could be effective. But it would have to be specific parts of a page, not all of it. Today, there are always things that can change in games (DLC being the most prominent) so we would need to be able to also edit extra information in with old, accurate information being secured. "
The only thing I could think of is when something is "content-locked," any edit has to be approved by a mod no matter the user's point total. Luckily, though, I don't think this sort of stuff is too common.
@Roflwaffles said:
" @jakob187 said:
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
Maybe they should take away the privilege to freely edit once you get 1,000 points; change it to 10,000 or something. "
Then people would just spam images to 10,000 instead of 1000, unfortunately.
" I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over." "
I just checked all of the the wiki tasks and there was no mention of it. Clearly, whoever it was was making an executive decision on their own. Again, I know what was there. It didn't suck. What's there now is good. It adds some stuff, but it also missing some stuff that was there and in parts is much less convenient to read. If I want to read up on multiplayer details I want to be able to jump to what I want, not read a damn novel. Again, add and edit, don't replace. "
Holy fucking shit dude, are you saying I'm lying about the task? mracoon assigned it and you can even ask him. Also, this was before I had 1,000 points, so the MODs saw it as better too because they approved it. You could combine all of the previous top editors scores, and it wouldn't even be a fourth of what I wrote. There was no multiplayer details on the page before, gameplay details, story details, or really ANY details. Don't get mad at me because I erased some dudes 10 minutes of work, especially when the one of the orders of the task was "page formatting."
@AlwaysAngry: I agree 100% with that. And, I know I have bias seeing as I wrote some of what was originally there, but what's there now is not a full-on upgrade. For instance, whoever rewrote it doesn't even mention kit equipment aside from weapons, which is clearly not an improvement over what was there. I know you weren't referencing the BFBC page, specifically, but I'm just making my point.
" I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over." "
I just checked all of the the wiki tasks and there was no mention of it. Clearly, whoever it was was making an executive decision on their own. Again, I know what was there. It didn't suck. What's there now is good. It adds some stuff, but it also missing some stuff that was there and in parts is much less convenient to read. If I want to read up on multiplayer details I want to be able to jump to what I want, not read a damn novel. Again, add and edit, don't replace. "
Holy fucking shit dude, are you saying I'm lying about the task? mracoon assigned it and you can even ask him. Also, this was before I had 1,000 points, so the MODs saw it as better too because they approved it. You could combine all of the previous top editors scores, and it wouldn't even be a fourth of what I wrote. There was no multiplayer details on the page before, gameplay details, story details, or really ANY details. Don't get mad at me because I erased some dudes 10 minutes of work, especially when the one of the orders of the task was "page formatting." "
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
That's a good idea. "
Perhaps, but what if someone wanted to add something valid and interesting to the already well written content? "
Maybe the current info could be locked, but people could still add-on. Or maybe after a page is marked as "good", any changes will have to be moderated regardless of points.
" I wiped the SOCOM 3 page and replaced it with my work. I think it's better that way and can understand why people do it sometimes...especially when the wiki task says, "Hey, this page sucks! Erase it and start over." "
I just checked all of the the wiki tasks and there was no mention of it. Clearly, whoever it was was making an executive decision on their own. Again, I know what was there. It didn't suck. What's there now is good. It adds some stuff, but it also missing some stuff that was there and in parts is much less convenient to read. If I want to read up on multiplayer details I want to be able to jump to what I want, not read a damn novel. Again, add and edit, don't replace. "
Holy fucking shit dude, are you saying I'm lying about the task? mracoon assigned it and you can even ask him. Also, this was before I had 1,000 points, so the MODs saw it as better too because they approved it. You could combine all of the previous top editors scores, and it wouldn't even be a fourth of what I wrote. There was no multiplayer details on the page before, gameplay details, story details, or really ANY details. Don't get mad at me because I erased some dudes 10 minutes of work, especially when the one of the orders of the task was "page formatting." "
I believe you, AlwaysAngry.
"
I still feel the need to post this though... Looks like somebody didn't look hard enough.
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
That's a good idea. "
Perhaps, but what if someone wanted to add something valid and interesting to the already well written content? "
Maybe the current info could be locked, but people could still add-on. Or maybe after a page is marked as "good", any changes will have to be moderated regardless of points. "
I don't know. Something about this idea just doesn't seem right. Everyone on GB is free to edit the wikis (provided they aren't banned, obviously), and it seems like locking content in an article limits people's abilities to use this privilege. Having the edits to locked content go through moderation might work? but then, that's kinda taking away the privilege of editing without moderation once you surpass 1,000 points.
" @AlwaysAngry: Page formatting can be fixed without deleting everything they wrote. "
Not the point. The point is, sometimes fixes can be for the better and you just have to accept that. If somebody re-wrote my page, got 10,000+ points on that page and added a ton of new content, while erasing what I wrote and making it 10x better, I would accept it and realize it was only to make it better.
And for the record, I didn't erase everything he wrote. I kept about half of what he wrote. That would be the maps and the game modes that maps could be played on. What was left was a short paragraph summing up his opinions on the games. I can't show you the wiki that was before mine, but I think that you would agree, the changes were for the better.
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
Maybe they should take away the privilege to freely edit once you get 1,000 points; change it to 10,000 or something. "
I gotta admit - 1,000 points is EASY to achieve. Find a page with nothing on it (and I've seen a LOT of pages for Game Boy games that are dead as doornails that I plan on working on) and drop a fat 1,000 point bomb. At the same time, it would dramatically drop the ability to keep things updated on the Wikis.
I don't know. Just sucks to hear stories like this happen. = /
This is why on the Mortal Kombat page I made a new section titled "Previous History" and put all the old stuff there before adding all of what you see now. Luckily it makes sense for that page.
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
That's a good idea. "
Perhaps, but what if someone wanted to add something valid and interesting to the already well written content? "
Maybe the current info could be locked, but people could still add-on. Or maybe after a page is marked as "good", any changes will have to be moderated regardless of points. "
I don't know. Something about this idea just doesn't seem right. Everyone on GB is free to edit the wikis (provided they aren't banned, obviously), and it seems like locking content in an article limits people's abilities to use this privilege. Having the edits to locked content go through moderation might work? but then, that's kinda taking away the privilege of editing without moderation once you surpass 1,000 points. "
Yeah, idk. Just throwin out ideas. Maybe people that have 5000 points could still bypass. That would make the system pretty complicated though.
@FireBurger: I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the SOCOM 3 page. My bad.
Yeah, if he erased something so simple as kit info and didn't replace it and make it 10x better, that's just wrong.
I was basically talking about wiki pages in general though when I said sometimes formatting is necessary. If the BF:BC page was a nice, well written page, shame on the new editor.
@AlwaysAngry: Haha, it's cool man. I think I actually have a backup of the page on a flash drive somewhere (from one of the vandalism periods), so maybe I'll see if I can find it tomorrow and work some of the stuff I think is missing back in / rework the formatting a bit.
" I really do wish there was a way to lock quality content on a page. Basically, it would be like a moderation team on their own that looked at the content, said "hey, that's exactly what it needs to be", and then locked it from being erased or edited outside of spelling and grammar corrections or something. "
That's a good idea. "
Perhaps, but what if someone wanted to add something valid and interesting to the already well written content? "
Simple. The mods see a certain portion of a page, highlight it, and lock it out due to its significance. From that point on, the section isn't "locked," but any addition to it must be approved by a mod(s), no matter if you have 1 wiki point or are a full-fledged mod.
I've rewritten wiki pages a few times, but only because there wasn't much text and it made more sense to scrap it and rewrite it in a more organised fashion. Replacing a fully written page, however, I am against.
They should do away with the free edits completely, and get some more mods, with a solid grasp of the English language, so that edits can be approved faster.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment