Jump to content

Wiki Bias


Artifex
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1

image.png?ex=65f5ad0b&is=65e3380b&hm=0a640d0767cb6936d92567608b47cf3887ad83c117a24672a3d863cd0ce3a642&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

image.png?ex=65f5ad0b&is=65e3380b&hm=0a640d0767cb6936d92567608b47cf3887ad83c117a24672a3d863cd0ce3a642&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Blutarch Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Malal
  • Upvote 3

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:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 3
xzhPlEh.png?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Kurdanak
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
xzhPlEh.png?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Aisling Duval
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.