I was looking at the Wikipedia article on AGS just now, and it seems to have a rather large amount of holes, considering AGS has such a huge community.
Maybe we could get together and give it a makeover?
Now, I'm not much good when it comes to verbatim(among other reasons), so I haven't done it myself.
In fact, I was going to add a bit on the AGS awards using the information
Here (http://www.americangirlscouts.org/AGSAwards/rules.php?section=generalinfo), but as I'm not sure about the legal stuff, and I cant think of another way to rephrase it that wouldn't sound lame, I havn't done it.
Does anyone else like the idea?
It's been said before. Of course, you have to have references for anything you add, or the Wikinazis will just revert it. A lot of stuff has been removed recently becuase they didn't like the informal style, lots of external links, etc.
Also, the AGS Awards site you linked to is veeeerrrrrryy out of date.
Quote from: SSH on Wed 11/02/2009 12:31:21
Wikinazis
You know that I'll dream of pencil-moustachéd viking conquerers for AGES now, do you?
Quote from: Ghost on Wed 11/02/2009 13:26:22
Quote from: SSH on Wed 11/02/2009 12:31:21
Wikinazis
You know that I'll dream of pencil-moustachéd viking conquerers for AGES now, do you?
Hah!
That's very good. I like that. :)
Wikipedia started out as a free information source. You could find information on ANYTHING. Now everything has to be written in a very specific manner all documented and cross-referenced with "verifiable" outside sources. As SSH said, they've turned into a load of Nazis over there. And not the good kind! :=
Sources which you could use would be the main AGS website (<http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/>), and then anything from the press (i.e., gaming magazines) which you can directly link to online (scans don't count).
Over the past several years Wikipedians have taken out more true, valid information from the site simply because "it's not good enough" or "you didn't have enough documentation." The enforcement rate of their "no original research" policy has gone through the roof, but honestly it's a bit counter-intuitive in the case of something such as AGS, where most of the documented (i.e., forums, wiki, etc.) information about the program has been written by the users. So per Wikipedia policy, none of it counts for anything.
I'll still use Wikipedia, it's still a very valuable source of information. However IMO the site has gone far downhill from its launch, and honestly, Uncyclopedia is about as likely to contain information like this these days...
I hope that everyone, all things considered, agrees that Wikipedia is much better off with proper encyclopedic standards.
We don't exactly need, or lack, information these days, we need information that has been scrutinized and double-checked and verified.
If the price is that we can't ramble on about AGS to the extent we'd like, I'm willing to pay it.
And here is the "Stop the evil!" topic. (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=29391.0)
I completely agree with Andail. The amount of misinformation and inaccuracy floating around the internet, if unchecked, could well distort the perceptions of future generations, especially in light of how it is being relied on more and more by schools as a 'legitimate' source of information for coursework.
Me three for approving of higher Wikipedia standards. Back when Wikipedia was smaller, and didn't have the visibility it does today, it made sense to just enter information without worrying too much about verifiability. But now that it's the first (and, too often, only) stop for high school students, journalists, fact checkers, researchers, ... in short: everyone who wants to find out about a new topic, they do have a responsibility to be more discriminating.
Also, keep in mind that the policies are in place to help resolve difficult problems. How do you decide disagreements and edit wars unless participants are required to back up their claims? How do you filter out all the lies, jokes, nonsense, vanity chaff and trivia, misinformation, urban legends and mistakes that people will inevitably post? How do you make sure that people aren't adding stuff that "must be true, I read it on the Internet"? Do you think it would be better to rely solely on subjective judgments without the guidance of any rules?
Yeah, it can be frustrating. Especially if you're trying to put together an article on something where there isn't a lot of documentation available, or where there's plenty of excellent information, but the sources don't meet Wikipedia's formal standards. But the extra work required is probably going to make for a better article, and a better encyclopedia.
well said, Snarky (even though it's essentially what I said!) := .
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 14/02/2009 03:11:01
Sources which you could use would be the main AGS website (<http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/>), and then anything from the press (i.e., gaming magazines) which you can directly link to online (scans don't count).
You can use print sources whether or not they're available online, as long as you reference them so that other people can find them (e.g. publication, issue, page). In fact, stuff that isn't available online will often be more effective, since people can't be bothered to verify them. (You shouldn't abuse this trick, obviously.)
You can't cite scans because the scans aren't the source, the magazine they were scanned from are the source. If you have the publication data (reliably), there's nothing to stop you from citing that, even if you have only read it in a scanned copy. (That's common practice in research circles: many times, books, journals and conference proceedings are hard to come by/expensive in the original, so researchers only read them in facsimile copies they get through library loan (or in more recent times, PDF scans over email and web). They don't cite that as "
a photocopy of the chapter in book X", they cite it as the print publication it was copied from.)
The "Let's go guys , let's have a wiki article" attitude are precisely the reason why Wikipedia policies are made. I know how it can sucks sometimes, but that's for the good of the wiki project.
- Even if there's an article for each f**k**g Pokemon ever created.
Pokemon had a huge cultural impact, it's as valid a topic as any other pop culture icon. As this is coming from someone who's never played a game in their life.
You lie.