MShipley88 wrote:
Could someone give an example of this?

How is this done?

Is there an example of an inaccurate statement?

MShipley88 wrote:I see.  So, you would argue that the Wiki entries are biased for what they do not say.  

I was focussing on what they do say.

The discussion I just read was dominated pretty well by cloak and dagger, who made the strongest and and most pertinent points against Wiki's critics.  The others did not seem to understand his points.

But then again, I am not necessarily a partisan of 1st edition.

I would have to read a lot more to see the bias.  So far as I can tell the main criticism seems to be that the Wiki editors do not say that 3rd edition sucks.

I have to agree that a discussion of Castle Greyhawk must include discussion of Castle Zagyg and similar late additions to the canon.

What I perceive is more of a bias in favor of TSR products and against non-TSR products than in favor of 3rd edition.

I would also agree with cloak and dagger that the 1st edition rules were "clunky" in many areas.  I would only add that the same "clunkiness" was what we actually liked about the rules.

Mark  

MShipley88 wrote:I see.  So, you would argue that the Wiki entries are biased for what they do not say.  

I was focussing on what they do say.

The discussion I just read was dominated pretty well by cloak and dagger, who made the strongest and and most pertinent points against Wiki's critics.  The others did not seem to understand his points.

But then again, I am not necessarily a partisan of 1st edition.

I would have to read a lot more to see the bias.  So far as I can tell the main criticism seems to be that the Wiki editors do not say that 3rd edition sucks.

I have to agree that a discussion of Castle Greyhawk must include discussion of Castle Zagyg and similar late additions to the canon.

What I perceive is more of a bias in favor of TSR products and against non-TSR products than in favor of 3rd edition.

I would also agree with cloak and dagger that the 1st edition rules were "clunky" in many areas.  I would only add that the same "clunkiness" was what we actually liked about the rules.

Mark  

zhowar wrote:The only thing I've ever added to Wikipedia was on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Arneson

I added the following:
"In 1986, Arneson wrote a new D&D module set in Blackmoor called "The Garbage Pits of Despair", which was published in two parts in Different Worlds magazine issues #42 and #43."

This was last Spring. It's still there. It's such a straight forward statement of fact that I guess it didn't offend too many Wiki police...

MShipley88 wrote:How does one become a Wiki editor?  Do you just type over whatever someone else has posted?  That sounds like chaos.

Xaxaxe wrote:Wikipedia is a disaster. It is, with no doubt at all in my mind, the world's classic example of "good intentions, poor execution."

I heartily recommend following a plan I came up with a few months ago: ignore Wikipedia like it's a one-legged hooker with oozing sores. Seriously, what will you be missing? A site where the entry for Pokemon is easily 50 times better than the entry for the Louisiana Purchase? And they have the stones to call that an encyclopedia? It's a sad joke, is what it is.