The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Wiki people are picky..... [citation needed]
ArcSyn
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Sheesh, I'm new to editing Wiki pages, but I figured I can start to help out with things if I ever see something wrong. That and I figured I should register anyway.
I saw on the Wii wiki that it still stated that it was behind the 360 in sales. After seeing in the sales thread and a couple news sources that the Wii finally outsold the 360, I figured I would correct this. The sentence previously had no source attached to it, and I didn't add one either because I'm pretty new at this.
Within minutes someone had reverted my edit and stated that it was not sourced.
So fine, I go back in and I source to the article by Information Week that the Wii has sold more worldwide than the 360.
Within minutes it's reverted back and they said that the article refers to VGChartz which is not a valid source for information.
Ok, so if my source isn't valid, and they want sources, I'll just delete the sentence and leave it stating that since it's launch it has sold more per month than either of the other consoles as per NPD and Media Create (sourced).
Within minutes it's reverted and they comment that "we can do simple math".
I revert his edit back to mine (with the total sales sentence removed) saying that it's not sourced.
He adds sources to the 360 reporting 11.4mil SHIPPED.
Well, shipped isn't sold, and it's commonly done just to boost your numbers and the fact that not all retailers report sales numbers.
That's fine, but this is in the sales section, so it's not valid. So I revert it back.
Just venting a little because I thought I would help out with things, but if I change an unsourced sentence and don't source, it's wrong, but the previously unsourced sentence is still ok? (Granted, yes, the 360 had outsold the Wii and without a doubt as of July, but as of now, that's not so definite)
Then I source it, but my source isn't good enough.
So I just remove it, but no, that sentence can stay in there because we can do simple math with numbers that we don't have?
oi..
I realize that Wikipedia is trying to stay as true as can be while still user edited, but is everyone this picky?
[Not a Nintendo fanboy, just surprised how fast people were to reverse things and use circular reasoning about it]
I saw on the Wii wiki that it still stated that it was behind the 360 in sales. After seeing in the sales thread and a couple news sources that the Wii finally outsold the 360, I figured I would correct this. The sentence previously had no source attached to it, and I didn't add one either because I'm pretty new at this.
Within minutes someone had reverted my edit and stated that it was not sourced.
So fine, I go back in and I source to the article by Information Week that the Wii has sold more worldwide than the 360.
Within minutes it's reverted back and they said that the article refers to VGChartz which is not a valid source for information.
Ok, so if my source isn't valid, and they want sources, I'll just delete the sentence and leave it stating that since it's launch it has sold more per month than either of the other consoles as per NPD and Media Create (sourced).
Within minutes it's reverted and they comment that "we can do simple math".
I revert his edit back to mine (with the total sales sentence removed) saying that it's not sourced.
He adds sources to the 360 reporting 11.4mil SHIPPED.
Well, shipped isn't sold, and it's commonly done just to boost your numbers and the fact that not all retailers report sales numbers.
That's fine, but this is in the sales section, so it's not valid. So I revert it back.
Just venting a little because I thought I would help out with things, but if I change an unsourced sentence and don't source, it's wrong, but the previously unsourced sentence is still ok? (Granted, yes, the 360 had outsold the Wii and without a doubt as of July, but as of now, that's not so definite)
Then I source it, but my source isn't good enough.
So I just remove it, but no, that sentence can stay in there because we can do simple math with numbers that we don't have?
oi..
I realize that Wikipedia is trying to stay as true as can be while still user edited, but is everyone this picky?
[Not a Nintendo fanboy, just surprised how fast people were to reverse things and use circular reasoning about it]
ArcSyn on
0
Posts
I'm pretty sure two major gaming blogs, (kotaku and joystiq) IGN, and G4 all have it posted, if the very decently correct VGchartz isn't good enough for them. Regardless the August numbers will infact be more than enough. Hell, the August Japan numbers plus the July US numbers should be more than enough.
Twitter
Not really. Wikipedia is a bitter twisted system that rewards people for being bitchy and refusing to bend to other people's will.
It's why the conservatives complain about it so much because it doesn't say what they want it to say.
I would try putting in a complaint about the person editing it.
Satans..... hints.....
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Other than simple typo errors, I wouldn't want to edit fuck, last thing I need is one more senseless argument.
Just makes you wonder how fucked up Wikipedia really is.
Seriously, they got a lot better. At first they were way off, but each month they kept at it, adding the real numbers to their projections to reduce the error. They are now within a nominal statistical deviation from the offical numbers.
So they are basically stealing the NPD data?
Wait, isn't that what all gaming sites do? Steal off a reliable source? But please, correct me if I'm wrong, I won't consider myself an expert in this area.
That statement now reads "Winning is often a matter of pure luck and not of skill. In a 1990 short story published in The New Yorker (and sarcastically named after the game), Edward Allen wrote, 'The object of the game [is essentially] to press your handle down again and again as fast as you can, with no rhythm, no timing, just slam-slam-slam as your hippo surges out to grab marble after marble from the game surface....'"
The gaming sites that report the data acknowledge that they got it from NPD.
According to VGChartz,
See, slapping a 'z' behind your website name isn't cool guys, remember, it isn't cool.
I don't know where I'm headed actually, but if anything, I've got support for this thread.
This topic is clearly about two different things, wikipedia and VGchartz. I vote that it be split into two threads.
I think I'm in love with you.
But is there proper citation of the article?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Erm, erm...
:oops:
Pretty much. It's not even as good as it used to be for pop culture (comics, movies, TV, etc.) since some asshole decided that only the most basic expositions should be given and anything deemed "trivial" has to be deleted.
And just like that, the reason you are jailed becomes so very clear...
Anyway, what needed to be said has been. VGChartz is about as reliable as Spong. The only accurate numbers on VGC's site are the sales from previous periods in time. Anything not related to history shouldn't be trusted from their site.
edit: looks like this happened like a week ago and I wasn't paying attention. Woo hoo.
Uh, I dunno dude. There's still a lot... a LOT of geek stuff on there.
I'd say that's pretty trivial.
But see, that's all wikipedia is good for. Other than checking basic facts or as a starting place, no one with half a brain is going to use it for legitimate research (and never will so long as it remains a an encyclopedia for the masses by the masses, even 'real' encyclopedias are rarely used or considered legitimate sources).
Someone hasn't been to college!
I agree, if I want to do serious research I would used scholar reviewed article search engine, but no PHD is going to tell me wth is a pikachu. If a 8 years old want to write a 3 pages article about pikachu for his final exam, he would be about to cite anything the teacher will agree on!!! THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!
I play Blazblue, Soul Calibur 4, Street Fighter 4 and soon Tekken 6... yeah... so add me if you want to play any of those.
Yeah..uh..about that..
Some professors in the 400 level courses aren't accepting regular encyclopedias as sources now..
I wish they'd leave the "trivial" stuff alone. It seems pretty arbitrary and some of that stuff is interesting. I liked the list of all songs used in The Simpsons, buttholes!
This is most likely in an effort to get people back into journal articles and properly peer-reviewed sources. My teachers all acknowledge wikipedia as an excellent source for basic facts, like what the atomic weight of ethylene glycol is for example. But for beyond that, you need to find some more authentic sources. Handily, most of these authentic sources are linked to by wikipedia.
I too loved the trivial stuff posted on Wikipedia. Maybe they could have normal article, and uber-geek version of the article to satisfy us.
Most professors are barely aware of what wikipedia IS, let alone that they should stop people from using it. I only had science professors ever tell us not to use wikipedia.