Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > WarCraft Discussion > General WarCraft Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 01-10-2007, 11:01 PM
Gashbadder Gashbadder is offline

Archer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 32

Default

Actually, I believe that first line of Azsune is true. Did she not tell us that herself? My memory of the campaign is vague, I need to replay it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-10-2007, 11:44 PM
Flamestrider Flamestrider is offline

Arch-Druid
Flamestrider's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,068

Default

Aszune says she was a night elf princess in ages past. I don't recall her saying anything about why she was trapped in the Stonetalon caverns. But now that I think of it, that information might be in the optional quest description.
__________________
Many thanks to handclaw for his amazing rendition of Kargath Bladefist, which is now my avatar.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-14-2007, 12:56 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeedle
You should have named this thread "Why Baggins is an idiot". Seriously a lot of the problems the people on this forum have with WoWWiki are solely the fault of Baggins. Both of the pages you mention, Kenzuki, were created by him. Also the often used example of the Leprechaun-article on WoWWiki does only exist because of Baggins' stupid obsession with appendix III of the old Manual of Monsters. He's also responsible for throwing around the words "retcon" or "flavor lore" around way too much and using them as an excuse to put all sorts of stupid information in the wiki.
Basically just do the following when looking at articles on WoWWiki: If you find the username Baggins in the history of a page then it's best to either ignore the page completely or take the information on it with a huge grain of salt. If you do that you will mostly be fine (although there are of course still a lot of mistakes on WoWWiki, but it's really not as bad as some people on ScrollsofLore claim it to be).
It's fun to be an arrogant ass isn't it.

Just because you think Appendix III shouldn't have articles based around it doesn't mean you're right. It's in a Warcraft RPG book, WoWWiki is a Warcraft wiki site - oddly enough, the two go together. Not only that but such pages already have a disclaimer saying the info is from an RPG book AND a controversy note.

Seriously, all you WoWWiki haters, why don't you try to improve it rather than railing about how crap everything about it is. It's a WIKI, if you understand what that means? It's user created, meaning users can improve it! If you feel you've got mightier knowledge than the thousands of other people who use the wowwiki, why don't you apply it?

As fun as it must be for you to sit on the sidelines and laugh, you have no idea about how much each contributer adds to the wiki. As someone who spends a lot of his free time there as an admin, I have a rather better view of what goes on, and I am as passionate about the lore as any of you. So please, stop actingly like this

Edit: I should mention, everyone is welcome to edit the wiki. It's not an exclusive club. I know some people get pissed off if their edits are reverted - it's generally down to having not read the policies, or not bothering to talk about it first. I should also probably link the related discussion on Baggins' talk page in the spirit of co-operation. User talk:Baggins. We don't get paid for what we do, we do it because we enjoy it.

Last edited by Kirkburn; 01-14-2007 at 01:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-14-2007, 02:32 PM
Wulfang Wulfang is offline

Eternal
Wulfang's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 3,533

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkburn
It's fun to be an arrogant ass isn't it.

Just because you think Appendix III shouldn't have articles based around it doesn't mean you're right. It's in a Warcraft RPG book, WoWWiki is a Warcraft wiki site - oddly enough, the two go together. Not only that but such pages already have a disclaimer saying the info is from an RPG book AND a controversy note.
As a lot of people have said over and over again, Appendix III of the MoM is not canon. At the time, the Warcraft RPG was just an extra setting for D&D and that appendix was just about the devs making up some lore so that players could explain the existence of creatures of other settings in their Warcraft campaign if they decided to use them.

Quote:
Seriously, all you WoWWiki haters, why don't you try to improve it rather than railing about how crap everything about it is. It's a WIKI, if you understand what that means? It's user created, meaning users can improve it! If you feel you've got mightier knowledge than the thousands of other people who use the wowwiki, why don't you apply it?
You can be sure that the majority of people who post in these forums know more about Warcraft than many of those who write the articles for WoWWiki. Some of us have tried to correct those articles that have either false information or that have no canon source, but they end up reverting to what they said a few hours after being changed.

Quote:
As fun as it must be for you to sit on the sidelines and laugh, you have no idea about how much each contributer adds to the wiki. As someone who spends a lot of his free time there as an admin, I have a rather better view of what goes on, and I am as passionate about the lore as any of you. So please, stop actingly like this
I think that the concept behind WoWWiki is a good one: to create a complete encyclopedia of everything concerning Warcraft. I don't doubt that those who contribute to it work very hard or that they have good intentions, I just think that the way some of them work is very flawed.

We have tried to change what's wrong in WoWWiki, but we've all stopped trying because everybody there thinks they're right and won't let anyone change what they've written in their articles.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-14-2007, 02:46 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfang
As a lot of people have said over and over again, Appendix III of the MoM is not canon. At the time, the Warcraft RPG was just an extra setting for D&D and that appendix was just about the devs making up some lore so that players could explain the existence of creatures of other settings in their Warcraft campaign if they decided to use them.
"A lot of people" is not a convincing argument to remove info obtained from a Warcraft RPG book. A convincing argument would be "it's wrong".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfang
You can be sure that the majority of people who post in these forums know more about Warcraft than many of those who write the articles for WoWWiki. Some of us have tried to correct those articles that have either false information or that have no canon source, but they end up reverting to what they said a few hours after being changed.
Yup, baseless accusations, which I already addressed. And again, you're being seriously amazingly incredibly arrogant if you think that those here knows better than anyone else. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfang
I think that the concept behind WoWWiki is a good one: to create a complete encyclopedia of everything concerning Warcraft. I don't doubt that those who contribute to it work very hard or that they have good intentions, I just think that the way some of them work is very flawed.

We have tried to change what's wrong in WoWWiki, but we've all stopped trying because everybody there thinks they're right and won't let anyone change what they've written in their articles.
Thank you, that is the idea behind it. But to say we stop people changing stuff is NOT TRUE. I know it's not true, because I've spent many months making sure it isn't true! Follow the policies, explain what you're doing, perhaps even talk about it. Do you really expect major changes to an article to occur without discussion? The changes would have been reverted because the changer was likely to arrogant to tell anyone why!

I've been having a search over the forum and I keep seeing the same old arguements of "look at this! It's wrong!" and no attempt made to help or sort it out. Then there are those who point to speculation and rumour articles and then call us idiots for having them or allowing people to post their ideas.

Some people even go back several months and say "look they had some incorrect info back then!". Perhaps, but it isn't there now, is it?. The fire naga article for example, could only confuse a severly stupid person into thinking they're actually 'fire naga' now. But you know what, when it said it originally, it wasn't wrong because it wasn't refuted.

If you find something wrong, change it. And if it gets reverted, talk about it and you'll probably find it's because you're the one that is actually wrong or you are lacking a source to validate yourself, I assure you.

Last edited by Kirkburn; 01-14-2007 at 02:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-14-2007, 02:55 PM
Bradford Bradford is offline

Site Staff - News
Bradford's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,658
Send a message via AIM to Bradford

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkburn
It's fun to be an arrogant ass isn't it.

Just because you think Appendix III shouldn't have articles based around it doesn't mean you're right. It's in a Warcraft RPG book, WoWWiki is a Warcraft wiki site - oddly enough, the two go together. Not only that but such pages already have a disclaimer saying the info is from an RPG book AND a controversy note.

Seriously, all you WoWWiki haters, why don't you try to improve it rather than railing about how crap everything about it is. It's a WIKI, if you understand what that means? It's user created, meaning users can improve it! If you feel you've got mightier knowledge than the thousands of other people who use the wowwiki, why don't you apply it?

As fun as it must be for you to sit on the sidelines and laugh, you have no idea about how much each contributer adds to the wiki. As someone who spends a lot of his free time there as an admin, I have a rather better view of what goes on, and I am as passionate about the lore as any of you. So please, stop actingly like this

Edit: I should mention, everyone is welcome to edit the wiki. It's not an exclusive club. I know some people get pissed off if their edits are reverted - it's generally down to having not read the policies, or not bothering to talk about it first. I should also probably link the related discussion on Baggins' talk page in the spirit of co-operation. User talk:Baggins. We don't get paid for what we do, we do it because we enjoy it.
I will be honest, when I need information about a boss fight or a quest line, I look no where but to WoW Wiki. Let me say I really appreciate the effort you all put forth to that side of the game. On the other hand, your site is about as realiable for the lore as general chat on a roleplaying server. It seems like you make it up at will, and when other go to CORRECT it, it gets changed back in a matter of hours. This is exact reason why I have posted on this site for over a year and will contiune to do so. I will admit that I do not know as much as a few others on this site, but when I have questions I need answered, this is where I will First and ALWAYS come. This is the true lore site for warcraft......
__________________
There is no right or wrong, only the strong and the weak.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-14-2007, 02:58 PM
Wulfang Wulfang is offline

Eternal
Wulfang's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 3,533

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradford
I will be honest, when I need information about a boss fight or a quest line, I look no where but to WoW Wiki. Let me say I really appreciate the effort you all put forth to that side of the game. On the other hand, your site is about as realiable for the lore as general chat on a roleplaying server. It seems like you make it up at will, and when other go to CORRECT it, it gets changed back in a matter of hours. This is exact reason why I have posted on this site for over a year and will contiune to do so. I will admit that I do not know as much as a few others on this site, but when I have questions I need answered, this is where I will First and ALWAYS come. This is the true lore site for warcraft......
Quoted For MotherFucking Truth
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:03 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradford
I will be honest, when I need information about a boss fight or a quest line, I look no where but to WoW Wiki. Let me say I really appreciate the effort you all put forth to that side of the game. On the other hand, your site is about as realiable for the lore as general chat on a roleplaying server. It seems like you make it up at will, and when other go to CORRECT it, it gets changed back in a matter of hours. This is exact reason why I have posted on this site for over a year and will contiune to do so. I will admit that I do not know as much as a few others on this site, but when I have questions I need answered, this is where I will First and ALWAYS come. This is the true lore site for warcraft......
So to argue your point, you:

1. Ignore my points.
2. Insult the contributers.
3. Go back to groundless accusations again.

I'm not saying anything bad about this site, I know it's a very good lore site. But the feverish bashing of the WoWWiki is disturbing to say the least.

Your last sentence appears telling: "This is the true lore site for warcraft"

This is not a fight. I do not 'wish to take down SoL'. I do wish to enlighten you on your false opinions.


Edit: we (the main contributers) do not make up lore. If other people decide to add it, that's not our fault. If we see it, we remove it. If others point it out to us, we remove it. If no one tells us or sees it, strangely enough, it doesn't go away. This is where people like you come in!

Last edited by Kirkburn; 01-14-2007 at 03:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:20 PM
Bradford Bradford is offline

Site Staff - News
Bradford's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,658
Send a message via AIM to Bradford

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkburn
Edit: we (the main contributers) do not make up lore. If other people decide to add it, that's not our fault. If we see it, we remove it. If others point it out to us, we remove it. If no one tells us or sees it, strangely enough, it doesn't go away. This is where people like you come in!
People like me ignore inperfect means of relaying facts, and all Wiki sites are just that. Im not insulting you, or the staff directly, but moreso the means the facts are posted for all to see and edit. I will give an example.

I am helping my guild mates in BRD. We get to the point where we encounter the ambassador from MC. At this point he says "Those are one of those fire Naga from Molten Core." I attempted to correct him, and he then he got upset and pointed to the article on the wiki site that stated they WERE fire naga, changed by the Old gods, or whatever it said. I had no way to backup my point to the rest of my guild that those were not "FIRE NAGA" That made me, the guy who knew 10000 times more lore than the rest of my guild, look like an idiot. I dont appreciate that. Your intentions are good, the means of relaying them are not.....
__________________
There is no right or wrong, only the strong and the weak.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:24 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradford
People like me ignore inperfect means of relaying facts, and all Wiki sites are just that. Im not insulting you, or the staff directly, but moreso the means the facts are posted for all to see and edit. I will give an example.

I am helping my guild mates in BRD. We get to the point where we encounter the ambassador from MC. At this point he says "Those are one of those fire Naga from Molten Core." I attempted to correct him, and he then he got upset and pointed to the article on the wiki site that stated they WERE fire naga, changed by the Old gods, or whatever it said. I had no way to backup my point to the rest of my guild that those were not "FIRE NAGA" That made me, the guy who knew 10000 times more lore than the rest of my guild, look like an idiot. I dont appreciate that. Your intentions are good, the means of relaying them are not.....
But did you try to fix the article afterwards? Or did you come here and laugh about it? At the moment the prevailing idea on here appears to be the latter, which disappoints me

On a side note, I respect SoL as a resource, and we would not have anything against links from the wiki to here., whatever may be thought. I don't want us to be in a war, but from reading the comments here, it appears you are :/

I understand your misgivings about it being a wiki. It is true, it gives free reign for people to fiddle, but I like to view it as a benefit rather than a drawback. You form articles by consensus, rather than from a single (likely biased, whatever the writer's own belief) viewpoint.

I too was angry when I saw the fire naga article. Very angry indeed. You'll find I was the one who originally fixed it (back on the 9th June 2006). I hope that at least gives me some credentials here.

Last edited by Kirkburn; 01-14-2007 at 03:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:31 PM
Kenzuki Kenzuki is offline

Loremaster
Kenzuki's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Gates of Twilight
Posts: 9,954

Default

Kirkburn, I've tried to correct WoWWiki articles, writting a very long, and intelligent response and how it should be. I go back and hour later and it get's changed BACK to the incorrect information. So finally, I just said to hell with it.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:33 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenzuki
Kirkburn, I've tried to correct WoWWiki articles, writting a very long, and intelligent response and how it should be. I go back and hour later and it get's changed BACK to the incorrect information. So finally, I just said to hell with it.
Do you have an example so I can check up on what happened? What was your user name - I can check edits that way. Thanks!


Edit: Note that I've only been working on WoWWiki since May 2006, so my view is unbiased my the previous state of the wiki. The wiki is not the same place it was 1 year ago so far as I can tell, despite what some may feverishly believe.

Last edited by Kirkburn; 01-14-2007 at 03:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:37 PM
Bradford Bradford is offline

Site Staff - News
Bradford's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,658
Send a message via AIM to Bradford

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkburn
But did you try to fix the article afterwards? Or did you come here and laugh about it? At the moment the prevailing idea on here appears to be the latter, which disappoints me

On a side note, I respect SoL as a resource, and we would not have anything against links from the wiki to here., whatever may be thought. I don't want us to be in a war, but from reading the comments here, it appears you are :/

I understand your misgivings about it being a wiki. It is true, it gives free reign for people to fiddle, but I like to view it as a benefit rather than a drawback. You form articles by consensus, rather than from a single (likely biased, whatever the writer's own belief) viewpoint.

I too was angry when I saw the fire naga article. Very angry indeed. You'll find I was the one who originally fixed it. I hope that at least gives me some credentials here.
Thats not the point. The point being, and I KNOW weve all seen them, are those children who play to ruin the gameplay for others. Corpse camping, spawn camping, DKs on quest giver, griefers in general. These are the same people that can come to your site and could post that Michael Jackson rapping Sargeras, was the original source of his corruption now that Metzen Retconned it. Its untrustworthy, that is a simple FACT! By me not fixing it, doesnt make me a hippocrit, it just means I have better things to do than babysit an imperfect mean of destroying my hobbie. Its easier to just ignore, and come here and ask these guys. At least i know these guys are serious. The admins here are like bloodthirsty pitbulls. One nonsense post and you are gone faster than a krispy cream in the hands of Rosie O'donnel. I commend you for your efforts to try and fix something that is un-fixable......either way, I am here to stay.
__________________
There is no right or wrong, only the strong and the weak.

Last edited by Bradford; 01-14-2007 at 03:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:42 PM
Wulfang Wulfang is offline

Eternal
Wulfang's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 3,533

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkburn
So to argue your point, you:

1. Ignore my points.
2. Insult the contributers.
3. Go back to groundless accusations again.

I'm not saying anything bad about this site, I know it's a very good lore site. But the feverish bashing of the WoWWiki is disturbing to say the least.
Kirkburn, me and Bradford have already given you our reasons to dislike WoWWiki. As I've said, I think that what you're trying to do with that site is remarkable and you deserve my respect for working hard on writing articles for it and trying to make it accurate. But, while the site's articles on quests and game strategies are great, some of it's lore info is made out of thin air. The other day, I found one page where was written that Nath (who has been stated by MagusRogue in the WhiteWolf forums as being a true god and the creator of the gronn) was probably one of the gronn serving under Gruul the Dragonkiller

Besides the reasons that we gave you, most of us began to dislike the site when we realized that noobs who didn't know anything about Warcraft went there to get their information and consequently ended up having wrong ideas and passed them of to other noobs as true, in what I like to call a "plague of misinformation". I only use WoWWiki to refresh my memory on some parts of the lore that I'm not remembering at the moment because I can distinguish between what's right and what isn't, but someone who doesn't know anything about Warcraft will exit the site knowing some things that are right and other that are completely wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:48 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradford
Thats not the point. The point being, and I KNOW weve all seen them, are those children who play to ruin the gameplay for others. Corpse camping, spawn camping, DKs on quest giver, griefers in general. These are the same people that can come to your site and could post that Michael Jackson rapping Sargeras, was the original source of his corruption now that Metzen Retconned it. Its untrustworthy, that is a simple FACT! By me not fixing it, doesnt make me a hippocrit, it just means I have better things to do than babysit an imperfect mean of destroying my hobbie. Its easier to just ignore, and come here and ask these guys. At least i know these guys are serious. The admins here are like bloodthirsty pitbulls. One nonsense post and you are gone faster than a krispy cream in the hands of Rosie O'donnel. I commend you for your efforts to try and fix something that is un-fixable......either way, I am here to stay.
I'm not suggesting you're a hypocrit! Neither am I saying you can completely trust the wiki either.

If someone makes a change like that, it will be sorted, but how quickly depends on whether people help do so. We keep a close eye on the recent changes, and I assure you edits like that are very rare indeed. Maybe one a day, and they're all caught. Generally vandals like that are very obvious, as they make multiple edits to random articles in a short periods - easily noticed. If you check the vandals page on the wiki, you'll see we block all vandals for varying periods, much like here I can guess

I think it's unfair to describe something that isn't broken as unfixable. You might as well dismiss wikipedia and every other wiki site out there too! It's not 100% reliable, of course not, but it's damn close.

You end with "I am here to stay". There's nothing stopping you helping both places. There's no conflict of interest or in fact conflict of anything. Do what you wish, I'm here to clear up incorrect viewpoints

When people come to the wiki (as anywhere else in life), you have to remember big changes don't occur immediately. It's why we have talk pages, so that major problems can be identified and fixed. I rarely see reverts, so I'm not sure where this idea comes from too.

Tbh, I guess I am suggesting people give the wiki a second chance, and I really cannot see why one shouldn't. I used to be like many here, very wary of it - but then I got involved and saw my error.

Last edited by Kirkburn; 01-14-2007 at 03:48 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:53 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfang
Kirkburn, me and Bradford have already given you our reasons to dislike WoWWiki. As I've said, I think that what you're trying to do with that site is remarkable and you deserve my respect for working hard on writing articles for it and trying to make it accurate. But, while the site's articles on quests and game strategies are great, some of it's lore info is made out of thin air. The other day, I found one page where was written that Nath (who has been stated by MagusRogue in the WhiteWolf forums as being a true god and the creator of the gronn) was probably one of the gronn serving under Gruul the Dragonkiller
How in hell are we supposed to know that? We're not omnipotent. New info can only be added if someone adds it! It doesn't appear of it's own accord ....

I know you've given me reasons why you don't like it. That doesn't mean they're correct - which is why I am here, refuting parts of them. Again, we do not make lore out of thin air. Please stop saying that unless you can source it. The info comes from the RPG books, novels and games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfang
Besides the reasons that we gave you, most of us began to dislike the site when we realized that noobs who didn't know anything about Warcraft went there to get their information and consequently ended up having wrong ideas and passed them of to other noobs as true, in what I like to call a "plague of misinformation". I only use WoWWiki to refresh my memory on some parts of the lore that I'm not remembering at the moment because I can distinguish between what's right and what isn't, but someone who doesn't know anything about Warcraft will exit the site knowing some things that are right and other that are completely wrong.
I know, and I see where you're coming from. But as I say, that can only be prevented by correcting it. The wiki isn't going away, and is very popular, so it might as well be accurate too


Note: I know the wiki is quite slow at the moment, it's being worked on

Last edited by Kirkburn; 01-14-2007 at 03:59 PM.. Reason: Spacing, slowness note
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:00 PM
Bradford Bradford is offline

Site Staff - News
Bradford's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,658
Send a message via AIM to Bradford

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkburn
I'm not suggesting you're a hypocrit! Neither am I saying you can completely trust the wiki either.

If someone makes a change like that, it will be sorted, but how quickly depends on whether people help do so. We keep a close eye on the recent changes, and I assure you edits like that are very rare indeed. Maybe one a day, and they're all caught. Generally vandals like that are very obvious, as they make multiple edits to random articles in a short periods - easily noticed. If you check the vandals page on the wiki, you'll see we block all vandals for varying periods, much like here I can guess

I think it's unfair to describe something that isn't broken as unfixable. You might as well dismiss wikipedia and every other wiki site out there too! It's not 100% reliable, of course not, but it's damn close.

You end with "I am here to stay". There's nothing stopping you helping both places. There's no conflict of interest or in fact conflict of anything. Do what you wish, I'm here to clear up incorrect viewpoints

When people come to the wiki (as anywhere else in life), you have to remember big changes don't occur immediately. It's why we have talk pages, so that major problems can be identified and fixed. I rarely see reverts, so I'm not sure where this idea comes from too.

Tbh, I guess I am suggesting people give the wiki a second chance, and I really cannot see why one shouldn't. I used to be like many here, very wary of it - but then I got involved and saw my error.
Most of us here understand how a Wiki site works, but not everyone else does. Like the example I listed above about the fire naga. I have had nothing but bad experiences with that site as reference, therefore its hard to give it a second chance. As you said its not 100% accurate, and my point is that it never will be. When you are dealing with a story that is as imperfect and ever changing like WoW, its hard to base a wiki site for it. The point of WoW, from my standpoint, is that the player can contribute to its future story line. Blizzard has done well with the game, but not with its progressive lore. You have an impossible task ahead of you keeping up with all the changes that have and will be made. I do not admire you for the work you have ahead of you, but I do commend you for your patients you have shown on this thread thus far. You seem like a reasonable person working on an unreasonable project. I guess you can say I am a "Glass is half empty" sorta guy. My apologies if it seems like I am flaming you, that was not my intension.
__________________
There is no right or wrong, only the strong and the weak.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:10 PM
Yuber8900 Yuber8900 is offline

Site Staff - Moderator
Yuber8900's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,645

Default

Everytime I try to edit something I get banned.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:17 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradford
Most of us here understand how a Wiki site works, but not everyone else does. Like the example I listed above about the fire naga. I have had nothing but bad experiences with that site as reference, therefore its hard to give it a second chance. As you said its not 100% accurate, and my point is that it never will be. When you are dealing with a story that is as imperfect and ever changing like WoW, its hard to base a wiki site for it. The point of WoW, from my standpoint, is that the player can contribute to its future story line. Blizzard has done well with the game, but not with its progressive lore. You have an impossible task ahead of you keeping up with all the changes that have and will be made. I do not admire you for the work you have ahead of you, but I do commend you for your patients you have shown on this thread thus far. You seem like a reasonable person working on an unreasonable project. I guess you can say I am a "Glass is half empty" sorta guy. My apologies if it seems like I am flaming you, that was not my intension.
No it's fine

You bring up an interesting point - that the lore is not exactly set in stone. I guess this can be part of the reason why some have had problems with the wiki. They may have heard only one part of the lore (e.g. from WoW), and do not realise that there is a conflicting alternative. This leads them to believe the wiki is wrong.

For example, regarding who was the first druid - the tauren say they were, some say Malfurion was. Both have valid information to back them up. However, some who are not open to new ideas take one view as the truth and therefore tell everyone the wiki was 'wrong', when, in fact, it was they who were wrong.

The fact we're a wiki makes it easy for us to respond rapidly to new info that arises - I think there's far more up to date info on the wiki than you realise. We're already mostly updated for RotH!

Anyway, no source of information is completely accurate. I've seen people complain about Scrolls of Lore, BlizzPlanet, WoWWiki, wikipedia, the Blizz encyclopedia (yes!) and many other sites. None are perfect. The wiki is not worse than the others.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:19 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuber8900
Everytime I try to edit something I get banned.
No, you don't. Pray, do point me towards an example of this ... otherwise you are lying out of your ass, or are misrepresenting what you did.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:25 PM
Yuber8900 Yuber8900 is offline

Site Staff - Moderator
Yuber8900's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,645

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WoWWiki Whore
No, you don't. Pray, do point me towards an example of this ... otherwise you are lying out of your ass, or are misrepresenting what you did.
Whatever
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:27 PM
Adys Adys is offline

Critter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfang
Besides the reasons that we gave you, most of us began to dislike the site when we realized that noobs who didn't know anything about Warcraft went there to get their information and consequently ended up having wrong ideas and passed them of to other noobs as true, in what I like to call a "plague of misinformation". I only use WoWWiki to refresh my memory on some parts of the lore that I'm not remembering at the moment because I can distinguish between what's right and what isn't, but someone who doesn't know anything about Warcraft will exit the site knowing some things that are right and other that are completely wrong.
Sorry for coming from nowhere, but this is where you come and play your part of the game.
A wiki is made up entirely of user-created content, whether the content is itself made up from official sources or not depends on his/her intentions and eventually on his/her opinions, knowledge and attention to the work he/she puts in.
While editing the wiki, and I can say that as active editor myself, you will find hundreds of incorrect informations, misspellings, etc. It's where you play your part of the game, once again. This is where you don't say "Ok, there is just too many wrong informations so I'm not trusting them anymore" but where you fix them, explaining why etc.

You got banned for editing, then it means you didn't explain your changes anywhere. As per Kirkburn said, major changes will never make in the first time. You always have the edit summary for minor changes, and talk pages for bigger ones.

If we ban editors regularly its because we wish to prevent edit wars and one-sided opinions to spread. Trust me, we don't want wrong informations there and its for this very reason both Kirkburn and I are coming on here to tell you to come and participate. The more, the better.

You got problems with another wikian? Discuss with him/her. Eventually, other wikians will join the discussions and all we wish is peace to be kept.

Greetings,

--Adys
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:28 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

This reminds me of another occurence recently. I has someone insulting me live on wowradio because I deigned to try and defend the (pretty much) lies she was telling about the wiki. It seems her problem was that the speculation template wasn't obvious enough for her, so it meant the articles were "wrong". That pissed me off, but also resulted in a drive to make sure speculation is very very separate from referenceable info if some people are incapable of reading what is written. Of course, she also had a "bad experience" on the wiki - something I've found no evidence of (is Kenzuki going to tell me his wiki name, btw? I'm interested).

Over the last 6 months the policies and guidelines of the wiki have become much clearer, and I've been making lots of changes to help people follow them (lots of mediawiki hacks, much fun ). I assure you, it's very different these days.

Bah, I can't do my signature on here - this'll do: User:Kirkburn
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:29 PM
zeal zeal is offline

Wisp
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Send a message via AIM to zeal Send a message via MSN to zeal Send a message via Yahoo to zeal

Default

Ok, this is coming from someone who has only started getting involved with the wiki in the last month of so.

I don't frequent many of the so-called lore communities, as i tend to find, they either focus on RPers (who in general care not for fitting into the lore, but the lore fitting them), or the close minded ignorant sort. I do frequent a few, but most of the time, i find lore fanatics not open to hearing controversial speculations, and prefer to stick to their assumptions or interpretations of the lore and get angry and dismissive when challanged.

In ever community (except one where i tend to take charge) WoWWiki is always incorrectly criticized in places it doesn't deserve it.

First of all, no, it does not ever get things wrong, users get things wrong, and other users correct this when they see it. However what does happen is, assumptions from people like yourselves, sneak in under the radar and thus end up being displayed as fact. These things are speculation, and usually end up getting mixed in because of a lack of understand on the wiki policies on speculation or because the user beleives it to be fact.
Apparently, we need giant disclaimers (even bigger for some people..) for speculation to satisfy the criticisms from people like yourselves, who despite being able to read (and often quoting) that it is speculation, say the wiki has it written as fact.

I, while being new to the wiki, have tried to bring to light the criticisms the lore community has of the wiki, so the admins can understand them and hope resolve them. I'm personally on a crusade to help change many policies of the wiki to improve the wiki in itself, while aslo improving its use as a lore resource.

Many of you claim that you've tried to correct things you see wrong only to have it reverted. Let me tell you, i've not yet encountered such a practice, so i can only beleive you are doing something wrong. It is probably one of the following things:
Your perception of the lore was wrong.
You didn't follow a wiki policy.
You didn't discuss it before or after editing and the edits were controversial.
You tried to remove something that belongs on the article, but probably needs to be reworded or moved.
Your edit did not have an obvious source but you did not see fit to provide one to back up your edit.
You edits were based on bias and not of a neutral point of view.
In which case, you were in the wrong, so you it was correct to revert your changes.

You also claim that the wiki is a poor choice to present lore as anyone can edit it and it's always in a state of progressive development. Well, if you couldn't see already, the former is directly contradicted by the previous claim. Users and admins alike strive to keep the articles accurate, and this is evident with the prior claim. You do something wrong, it gets changed or reverted rather quickly.
As to its state, this can be said for any site, with the wiki however it is all happening at once, unlike a typical admin run site, where each article would be fairly complete or not exist at all. Some information is always better than none.

The wiki is not however idiot proof, nothing is. The Fire Naga issue is testament enough to this. It was not the fault of the wiki, it was the fault of the user who couldn't grasp what they are reading and where fact and speculation are different.

Some of you feel the wiki should not contain any speculation at all, but i ask you, in any lore community, how often is there a topic speculating on gaps in the lore? Speculations is needed to offer guidance and spark discussions on the lore holes, many enjoy it, i certainly do. The wiki has never claimed them as fact though.

It is oddly very common to find certain people with bias to soruces of lore, the wiki has encountered those who only stick to WC2 or WC3, those who beleive the novels and RPG books to be non-cannon, and most commonly, those who only view WoW as the one true source. WoWWiki has the policy of presenting all official sources of lore irregardless of opinions on them, they are there for users to make up their own mind on, you're always free to do that. But i no way are you allowed to remove or discredit sources. WoWWiki follows the implied stance of Metzen on lore, that all sources are valid, and Blizzard strive to make them consistant so you can enjoy and experience Warcraft through all mediums available.

I don't understand this issues soem of you have with the use of the term retcon on the wiki. Apparently some of you think it only applies to lore, not changes to spelling, captilization, wording etc. Well they have great impact on the lore, and impact on how the wiki works and is displayed, they are indeed retcons and must be resolved in order to provide consistancy to the users. I actually find the use of retcon on the wiki most refreshing, having seen it always thrown around and applied incorrectly to new flavour lore when it is conflicting with assumptions people had of previous lore. (This is probably the root of many issues people have with the wiki's reliablity, merely their fault.)

Generally, this is how i view most of what is the pattern here..

Scenario 1 (The lore noob):
User reads wiki, doesn't understand it fully, goes away with assumptions based on the entire article, irregardless of the speculation
User starts to preach them.
(No better than what goes on alot of lore forums)
User angers lore fans with the information he giving anf finds out it is from the wiki, thus a negative view is formed.

Scenario 2 (The lore fan):
User reads the wiki, sees something they believe to be wrong.
User edits the wiki wrongly (removing facts they they don't agree with or didn't know existed, adding bias or speculation as fact, making controversial changes without sourcing or adding reasoning to the talk page).
Someone reverts changes.
User beleives the wiki is biased and won't accept facts.
User tells his circle of lore fans about how bad he thinks the wiki is and starts to quote things he sees as wrong even when they are speculation.

I don't enjoy seeing the wiki discredited when it doesn't deserve it, especially against other unofficial lore resources that are far more unreliable and inaccurate (because they don't have the benefit of the wiki). Any good lore fan should be checking facts themselves where they can before ever sourcing the wiki and beleiving what is writen is 100% factual.
Understand, writing about lore with the odd citation and referrence is the only way, and with it often comes with slight interpretations that could possibly distort the facts. It is not possible to simply quote whole passages of lore because of copyrights, that's why no lore resource will ever be 100% compared to the original sources.

Hope that helps clear things up and sets things straight. If you decide to reply to this, atleast do it properly rather than dismiss it and resort to unfounded accusations.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:32 PM
Kirkburn
Guest
Posts: n/a

Default

Sorry, another post from us

If anyone is wondering why there's so much spam from us, it's cause we're chatting on the wowwiki IRC channel


I reckon I would probably join this forum more permanently, but time constraints make that hard (had to give up on the PvPRP one too). And obviously also the negative view of the wiki partly puts me off atm!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.