Create an Account
Forgot your Password?
World of Warcraft
WowRiot
Starcraft 2
Starfeeder
Hellforge
Hellforge
 
Machinima
Myndflame
Left 4 Dead
Left 4 Dead
RazeTheWorld
RazeTheWorld
 
Quake Live
Quake Life
1337pwn
1337pwn
Limit Break
Limit Break
 
Resident Evil
Resident Evil Horror
Gameriot Store
Buy Games!
WAAAGH! Warhammer Online Blog
 
 
 
POST STUFF
close
New Blog Post
Add a Video
Host an Image
Upload a File
by Syp, Level 43
Last updated at January 14, 2009, 10:26 am
This doesn't have much to do with Warhammer, other than being an elderly ancestor to the genre, but I've been following this story for the past week with absolute fascination.

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):
There's quite a few more articles about this, of course, but those should give you a good grasp on the situation.

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
McKillface Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
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.   
Ventris
Ventris Jan 14, 2009 at 11:15 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
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.
Hektik
Hektik Jan 15, 2009 at 12:17 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
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.
blog vitals
A Warhammer Online Blog
21 Subscribers
comments18    Likes: 16    March 29, 2009, 11:14 pm
comments3    Likes: 3    March 28, 2009, 12:38 pm
comments6    Likes: 5    March 27, 2009, 5:50 pm
comments1    Likes: 3    March 27, 2009, 1:42 pm
comments3    Likes: 3    March 27, 2009, 12:26 pm
comments6    Likes: 4    March 27, 2009, 8:27 am
comments0    Likes: 5    March 26, 2009, 9:54 pm
comments6    Likes: 4    March 26, 2009, 8:45 am
Started November 6, 2008
825 Total Entries
THE SPOTLIGHT
Warhammer's strong, silent type
1 of 3
THEFEED
 
Title / Action
Snippet:
User:
1 of 0
Copyright ©2007-2009 GameRiot All Rights Reserved.