Asierith Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 Just now, Blutarch Mann said: There are a lot of efforts to do this on the wiki-page, yes. Namely, Minesome inserting his name all over the article. Trust me, that opening paragraph read a lot better before Minesome """""undid vandalization"""". You should check the edit history on the wiki. I don't disagree at all that it reads terribly now, and as I've stated I plan to do a re-write to fix objectivity, ensure neutrality, and not paint either side as good/bad. I'm not here to defend the incoherence that is Minesome. Equally, whilst the paragraph might have been written well, the objection here isn't to the manner in which it was written, but rather the content. The attempt to force what should be a relatively unbiased record of events to fit with the narrative you want to push. Whilst there are other examples of this, this is a particularly egregious one, hence the more public objection to it. In short, don't ruin the wiki. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blutarch Mann Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 1 minute ago, Asierith said: I'm not here to defend the incoherence that is Minesome. Equally, whilst the paragraph might have been written well, the objection here isn't to the manner in which it was written, but rather the content. The attempt to force what should be a relatively unbiased record of events to fit with the narrative you want to push. Whilst there are other examples of this, this is a particularly egregious one, hence the more public objection to it. In short, don't ruin the wiki. Wiki articles need to not only be legible, but they need to not read like a clinical report. Things need to be engaging to a reader to get them to actually read an article on a subject. Inviting a reader to take an opinion while not stating which opinion should be taken is critical in getting the hooks into a reader. However, you're right that they need to be unbiased and objective. This is the goal of the planned rewrite projects. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 Unbiased. History. Oh man I have some bad news for you that goes way beyond a Nation Simulator Wiki. 1 1 4 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asierith Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 15 minutes ago, Blutarch Mann said: Wiki articles need to not only be legible, but they need to not read like a clinical report. Things need to be engaging to a reader to get them to actually read an article on a subject. Inviting a reader to take an opinion while not stating which opinion should be taken is critical in getting the hooks into a reader. However, you're right that they need to be unbiased and objective. This is the goal of the planned rewrite projects. Whilst I appreciate the desire to add a bit of artistic flair and desire for later rewrites, once again this isn't what we're objecting to. It's the way that people have chosen names without waiting for a general consensus and the aforementioned bias that they've written into the page. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blutarch Mann Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Asierith said: Whilst I appreciate the desire to add a bit of artistic flair and desire for later rewrites, once again this isn't what we're objecting to. It's the way that people have chosen names without waiting for a general consensus and the aforementioned bias that they've written into the page. Oh, the names thing? Yeah, it's a mess. Great Leak War is not a good sounding name and was pretty clearly chosen for Minesome to self-insert himself and the leaking stuff, but every single suggestion so far was just jammed into there. I agree, that crap is hosed and needs fixed. Edited January 15, 2020 by Blutarch Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) As someone who doesn't really contribute to the wiki nor has any stake in it's moderation, you have no idea what you're talking about. AFAIK, the person who creates the war article on the wiki essentially locks in the name until a forum vote is held. While anyone is free to edit a page, when a editing war starts the mods lock it down quick. If you wanted to have your handpicked name as the title of the wiki page you should have created it first and if you want your own name on the page then add it to the description. However, in regards to whether this particular war page should even exist though? Honestly, this war should have it's own master page with sub-pages breaking it down into 3 phases if anything. First phase is self-explanatory, second would be TS entrance, third would start a few days ago. Would certainly make the war page(s) more interesting. Edited January 16, 2020 by Malal 3 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Howdy folks! (for reference, to those newer to P&W or unfamiliar with the wiki, I am Kurdanak - a wiki Admin/Bureaucrat) The neutrality of the wiki is, indeed, important - as is precedent - and we'll certainly maintain that. Unfortunately, I have a lot going on IRL at the moment so I can't look into everything here (in sufficient detail) at this exact moment, but I'll catch up and give my thoughts ASAP. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) I will say now, however, that this is P&W's history we're talking about. Which may not seem all that important without a particular attachment to it, but for a game like P&W that's been here for over 6 years, I can assure you that it is taken quite seriously. Situations like edit wars, explicit bias, and general vandalism often result in editing suspension or permanent ban. Edited January 16, 2020 by Kurdanak 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamea Arano Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) This is a problem that i've addressed for years. The Wiki is and always will be neutral ground. Bias is something that isn't tolerated since the Wiki is mean't to be history based on facts (Nation-related roleplay is allowed). If anyone sees bias in the wiki especially wars should be reported by shooting me a message on the forums or someone who has the same tag as me and we will review it. We're here for a reason. Edited January 16, 2020 by Aisling Duval 2 4 Quote Terms of Service | Wiki | Contact Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Jonas III Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Y do goon spek lik dis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.