driver on 29/7/2006 at 10:40
Try Deus Ex, then, with its 30-odd related articles including one for each of the major characters, weapons, robots, factions and mods.
Baron Bifford on 29/7/2006 at 16:18
Wikipedia has a lot of pop culture stuff on it, but that's just fine. In fact, it's one of the best sources of info for pop-culture matters, because you get comprehensive and well-presented information that is difficult to find elsewhere A single Wikipedia article can contain info that would take hours or days to dig up from the rest of the Web.
I myself love to write on Wikipedia. I've contributed information on science and comic books. I think the science articles are suffering a bit from lack of comprehensive info and organization; I wish some college-level professors would contribute stuff.
Vigil on 29/7/2006 at 16:45
Nobody is complaining about the fact that Wikipedia has a lot of pop culture articles. They're complaining about the fact that seems to be
largely composed of pop culture articles, and the many ironies attendant thereon.
Specifically, it is both amusing and sad that the world is full of people eager to write <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbasaur">lengthy articles about Pokemon characters with more citations than the average Masters thesis</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Mackey">dreadfully-articulated biographies of fictional characters in their favorite crime dramas</a>; but articles about fields actually useful to mankind written by qualified people with professional knowledge in those fields are thin on the ground. In addition to which, said qualified people are <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25">actively discouraged from sharing that knowledge in Wikipedia by the efforts of armchair experts intent on anti-elitism</a>.
Wikipedia calls this tendency "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias">systemic bias</a>".
Sypha Nadon on 29/7/2006 at 18:09
Goddamn, I love the Japanese.:D
system shocker on 30/7/2006 at 00:58
I looked up 'wood' in Wikipedia. I found that there are some churches in Russia entirely made of wood.
Cookie Dough on 30/7/2006 at 03:04
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I'm not sure exactly how that relates to my point. Unless someone's been dilligently writing up separate articles for hammers, craymen, history of the city, amusing quotes by Garrett etc.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief_%28computer_game_series%29)
I think that qualifies somewhat for what you're talking about.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just that one can probably find almost
anything on Wikipedia. And some people who think an article on Bulbasaur is fascinating and important may just look at an article on Thief the same way a lot of people are looking at the article on Bulbasaur.
I'm no crazed Pokemon fan or anything, I actually don't think I've really ever seen much of it(but thanks to massive advertising here and there, on and off, I'm fully aware of it).
I just thought the article on Thief may interest some.
I was reading through some things on Wiki the other day, when Bulbasaur was making front-page news, and I really didn't think much of it. Mainly because I was reading a
website on the
Internet, not Webster's. So it didn't come as any shock to me.
Besides, Bulbasaur fits in nicely along with the rest of the random things in my Misc. Internet Images folder. :p
;)
Chimpy Chompy on 30/7/2006 at 09:55
Hmm no you're still not getting it. Of course it's reasonable that a videogame might have a wiki article, same as pokemon itself would. And you might warrant an article for each game in a series, same as there might be one for pokemon cartoons, one for the movie, others for toys and videogames etc.
It's when there's a whole spread of articles on every little aspect of fictional world of that videogame, that things might start to get on the silly side. At least to non-fans.
Article on thief: not comparable to article on bulbasaur
article on, say, Constantine or the Bonehoard: is comparable!
