Woohoo! My first Wiki article!

[Nev]

I decided to write one about JAMDAT, since most other major game companies have one. I'm not full-time with them anymore - I'm basically contracting for someone who's contracting for them, though I'm really doing their work - so it's not really self-promotion...*wink*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAMDAT

I hope to be a major contributor to the Wiki throughout my lifetime.

[Kupek]

Are there conflict of interest rules or ettiquette on Wikipedia?

[Nev]

From what I saw, I don't know if it's a hard-and-fast "rule", but there is an admonishment somewhere in their page-creating help against using it for self-promotion. I suppose there's probably what you'd call etiquette too - you know, like, "don't deface the articles," since anyone can edit anything at any time.

Like I said, JAMDAT has gotten to be a pretty major player in the wireless gaming industry, so in this case, I think the benefit to the Wiki outweighs the small conflict of interest I might have in "promoting" them as a company. Honestly, given that I don't directly work there anymore, I'm more worried that JAMDAT is going to sue me for something for posting that article than I am about conflicts of interest. I just really wanted to help contribute to the Wiki any way I could - I've sent them money before, but I'm a little broke right now.

[EsquE]

Cool...what the hell is Wikipedia?

I get the free encyclopedia thing, but I'm guessing there's more to this that what I'm seeing on the surface...can just anyone write something for them...about anything? Or is it strictly tech stuff?

[Nev]

Anything you want. The Wiki is awesome.

www.wikipedia.org

[SineSwiper]

In a nutshell, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is written by the Internet. Anybody can log in and edit (or create) any article they want. The system is similar to CVS, in such that changes to the articles are recorded, so that if they need to be reverted back to the old one, they can. Moderators roam the site to make sure the changes are valid, and to spot any typos, bad English, etc. MediaWiki, the software that runs the site, is very popular, though there are quite a few different types of Wiki software.

It's a wonderful example of how the viral Internet community can write a well developed project in just 5 years. It certainly beats the hell out of any hardbound version.

[Derithian]

It's kind of fun too. I've got a bunch of comic articles in there

[SineSwiper]

I decided to write one about JAMDAT, since most other major game companies have one. I'm not full-time with them anymore - I'm basically contracting for someone who's contracting for them, though I'm really doing their work - so it's not really self-promotion...*wink*

As long as it's NPOV, I think it'll be fine on Wiki's side. It looks to be that way, from what I read.

[Tortolia]

Wikipedia is a good quick reference/first stop for information on a subject, but you'd be a fool to solely rely on it for anything of actual importance.

[SineSwiper]

Well, you'd be a fool to solely rely on any encyclopedia for anything of actual importance.

[Tortolia]

Let me rephrase it to amend that I wouldn't feel comfortable using Wikipedia as a source for a paper or anything similar.

*shrug*

[Don]

I always thought what if I just go edit some randomly garbage info on an obscure entry (say, Fate Stay Night,, which is wrong on Wikipedia) and see how long until someone notices it, and then change it again and if they complain I can say the other guy is wrong. I doubt whoever they've for admin will actually go play FSN to verify what I put up is really not what happens in the game so it's just my word and theirs, and if that's not good enough I'm sure it can't be that hard to find 10 guys who's never played the game to say I'm right.

Like Tort, I think it's useful to look up something but I can't really say I've any kind of confidence in the accuracy of its information on anything remotely subjective.

[Nev]

Let me rephrase it to amend that I wouldn't feel comfortable using Wikipedia as a source for a paper or anything similar.

*shrug*

There are issues of source reliability to be sure.

However, something that happened in my personal life gives it a bit of credibility to me. I was talking with one of the local homeless guys down at the park - those who have been reading my posts know that I'm about halfway to the 'hood in my current neighborhood (well, maybe ALL the way to the hood, halfway to the ghetto).

He told me a story about being present at that park and seeing Snoop Doggy Dogg's bodyguard shooting some rival gang member at that park waaaaaay back when. I really didn't believe him, given that I haven't really found homeless people to be too reliable, but I did look it up on the Wikipedia when I got home. Though the location wasn't given, the Wikipedia's description of the incident matched exactly, down to the last name of the deceased. I've had a few more conversations with this guy since then and though it's still a little bit unbelievable, if I had to throw my weight behind one interpretation or another, I think I'd probably err on the side of believing him. And I still think to myself "Try looking <i>that</i> up on the Britannica."

At any rate, to some extent I agree. I probably wouldn't quote the Wikipedia directly if I were writing a policy or research paper, but I would definitely use it as a starting point to find out information to look things up from more heavily reviewed and edited sources.

[Tortolia]

Which is what I've said all along.

Wikipedia is a decent starting point if you're really unclear where to look for information on something, but that's about the extent of it.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone's "Information should be free and in the hands of the people!!one1!" beliefs, but I'm always going to be skeptical of a source that, for all I know, was created via the thousand monkeys at a thousand terminals approach that could one day theoretically recreate Shakespeare.

[Nev]

Meh. I'm not writing academic research papers, anyway. When I need access to a university library for research purposes, I'll go find one. Besides which, I saw more bullshit in Stanford libraries than so far I believe I've ever seen on the Wikipedia.

[SineSwiper]

I always thought what if I just go edit some randomly garbage info on an obscure entry (say, Fate Stay Night,, which is wrong on Wikipedia) and see how long until someone notices it, and then change it again and if they complain I can say the other guy is wrong. I doubt whoever they've for admin will actually go play FSN to verify what I put up is really not what happens in the game so it's just my word and theirs, and if that's not good enough I'm sure it can't be that hard to find 10 guys who's never played the game to say I'm right.

One, the regular moderators would track down any source of vandalism fairly quickly. Two, the person or people who wrote the page would get a notification that it was changed, and they could either discuss any disputes about why it's wrong, or simply revert the changes. If you want to get into an bitch match about who's wrong, eventually they will ask for proof (which could easily be provided on GameFAQs).

If you have a problem with one of the entries and think it needs to be corrected, then go correct it, or talk about it in the Talk page for that entry (if you think it might be a disputable correction). Saying that it's wrong and not bothering to changing it, especially when it's a small fix, is just plain lazy.

Honestly, the main problem is NPOV, if anything. The people who care about a subject are the ones writing about it, so trying to be objective can be hard sometimes.

BTW, quit arguing about something you know nothing about. If you want to know what happens if you change something to be wrong, then do it.

[SineSwiper]

Which is what I've said all along.

Wikipedia is a decent starting point if you're really unclear where to look for information on something, but that's about the extent of it.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone's "Information should be free and in the hands of the people!!one1!" beliefs, but I'm always going to be skeptical of a source that, for all I know, was created via the thousand monkeys at a thousand terminals approach that could one day theoretically recreate Shakespeare.

Yeah, and according to a lot of high school textbooks, everybody except Columbus thought the world was flat. This piece of information coming from "professional" textbook writers.

[Tortolia]

A bit of healthy skepticism is always good. Again, I'm sorry if that offends your Internet/Technology Makes Everything Bettar stance.

[Nev]

Ohhhh Shit! It's ooooonnnn! Fo shizzle.

Sorry, I'm in a bit of a weird mood this morning.

[SineSwiper]

A bit of healthy skepticism is always good. Again, I'm sorry if that offends your Internet/Technology Makes Everything Bettar stance.

No no, I understand. It's just that information outside of the Internet can be more flawed than people think. People just assume that because it's on print that it must be correct, when in fact, the authors that wrote it are just as human as the ones on the Intehweb.

[Don]

How would you even know it was vandalism? Why does the first guy to write this up get to revert the changes? Just because he wrote it first? Dispute the information easily? I know the guy who wrote that stuff because he's one of those guys in the Tsukihime camp which is the equivalent of the old school FF camp for this game (I'm of course in the new school) and I can see them even in 2 sentence blurbs about characters. I've argued with that guy on many things and they've about as much objectivity as which FF is the best goes and sure isn't something anyone who hasn't played the game (or even if you played the game for that matter) can discern who's right or wrong.

It'd be like asking me to write a FF6 Wiki entry and then have Zeus read it, or have Zeus write a FF7/8/10 entry and have me read it. This stuff is supposed to be just factual information but unless you get to a point of objectivity like 'FF6 is a RPG with 10 characters in it" (which isn't exactly useful information), there's always some subjectivity involved.

[SineSwiper]

Objectivity is always a problem with an unpopular topic, print or otherwise. Like I said, the main problem is NPOV.

[Nev]

Objectivity is always a problem with an unpopular topic, print or otherwise. Like I said, the main problem is NPOV.

I agree...and at least with the Wiki, you can dispute the article if you have a problem with its neutrality. I can't imagine seeing a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" header on a Britannica article.