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.


9 Comments