|
by Syp, Level 43
Last updated at January 14, 2009, 10:26 am
|
In short, a MUD called Threshold has had its entry under the threat of deletion in Wikipedia due to the overzealous ambitions of admins looking to increase their power. Apparently, this happens a lot in Wikiworld, but this time they touched on a significant part of MMORPG history, and the community has bucked back -- hard.
Loads of people have covered this event, so I scarcely need to, other than drawing your attention to it (if you haven't been aware of the story):
- "Wikipedia's War on Gaming History and Threshold RPG" @ Bright Hub - Great article including a significant analysis of how Wikipedia works and why it's borked.
- "Corruption, Treachery and Deceit and Wikipedia" @ Wolfshead - A good overview of it all.
- Richard Bartle's protest
- Raph Koster's protest
- Lum the Mad's protest
- Massively's coverage of this event
- /random's protest
My two cents about this is that, in a weird way, this is a positive conflict. Positive in that it's helping to expose some of the most fundamental flaws of Wikipedia, which will hopefully result in change for a better, more balanced and reasonable system where a few idiots can't throw their weight around and drown out the sane folks. My professors at seminary are adamant that Wikipedia never, ever be a source for any paper we write (although the sources they link to may be considered), simply because it is such an unreliable source of information. Sure, it can be vastly entertaining and educational, but I've seen people accept Wikipedia as the be-all, end-all source on any subject, preferring to quote a Wiki instead of a dictionary or a real encyclopedia.
I think the Threshold entry (which is back up after a deletion or two) will survive, especially since so much critical force has lashed out against this petty abuse of administration. But if it doesn't worry you that (a) so many people take far too much stock in Wikipedia as a primary source of information and (b) entries and history can be changed on a whim and even deleted, then you are a stronger man or woman than I.

3 comments
McKillface Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 am
+1 votes
I admit I was unaware of Threshhold before this article, as well as the "situation" at Wikipedia. I think that this whole shindig is indicative of the same crap one sees all over the net whenever individuals (hereto referred to as in-Duh-viduals) are granted creative liscense. When acclaim-deprived in-Duh-viduals see the opportunity to have people see and acknowledge their "work" they jump on it. Without any real check and balance system this often gets out of hand, as you can see. Wikipedia is a user based database that gives these cretins just that opportunity. I like the idea stated in the first article of having an increased paid staff that actually has final say over edits. This would help to prevent abuse of "power" (quotes used because its not as if Wikipedia really affects anyone's life in any real, tangible way, other than the amount of time spent contributing only to have your submissions lorded over by unqualified, egotistical in-Duh-viduals) by actually giving motivation to adhere to the rules set forth by Wikipedia. When you have a closed circle of Good ol' Boys jockeying for "power" without any reason to follow the rules it gets messy.
           In conclusion, Wikipedia should really take a look at its administration policies to prevent another debaucle like this. "Obscure" is a relative term. Any article viewed by ANYONE should be considered valuable and relevant, barring of course material that is derogatory or otherwise offensive. Even offensive material can be presented in a way that is still valid and informative, because "offensive" is another one of those pesky relative terms. Bottom line: Just because you dont care about something doesnt mean there arent many out there that do. Giving the power to censor material deemed "irrelevant" or "overly obscure" to a few individuals impedes upon the very fundamental principles Wikipedia is supposed to represent.  Â
           In conclusion, Wikipedia should really take a look at its administration policies to prevent another debaucle like this. "Obscure" is a relative term. Any article viewed by ANYONE should be considered valuable and relevant, barring of course material that is derogatory or otherwise offensive. Even offensive material can be presented in a way that is still valid and informative, because "offensive" is another one of those pesky relative terms. Bottom line: Just because you dont care about something doesnt mean there arent many out there that do. Giving the power to censor material deemed "irrelevant" or "overly obscure" to a few individuals impedes upon the very fundamental principles Wikipedia is supposed to represent.  Â
Ventris Jan 14, 2009 at 11:15 am
+1 votes
Wow ... Lum the Mad .. I haven't read his work in ages! have to put him in my reader. Thanks for the link Syp! I also found Tweety! My EQ-days circle is now complete!
BTW - anyone who uses Wikipedia as a 'primary' source of information should be scoffed but that's my humble opinion. Use wiki yes. Then follow the source links at the bottom of the entry and gleam the info first hand instead of someones interpretation.
BTW - anyone who uses Wikipedia as a 'primary' source of information should be scoffed but that's my humble opinion. Use wiki yes. Then follow the source links at the bottom of the entry and gleam the info first hand instead of someones interpretation.
Hektik Jan 15, 2009 at 12:17 pm
+1 votes
I don't know any college proffesor that would accept wiki as a valid source in any paper. Atleast I have yet to meet one.
« Previous |
1 |
Next » |
A Warhammer Online Blog
21 Subscribers
Started November 6, 2008
825 Total Entries
825 Total Entries



Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...