Wikipedia Article Update

[Esn]

If anyone in the future should ever need to list reliable 3rd-party sources that EvilDragon is indeed the same person as Michael Mrozek, I provided some in the GP2X article (used for the 60,000 number).

It's not impossible to get sensible results out of Wikipedia, it just often requires a lot of time. It's like visiting a foreign country for most people; they have their own complicated rules over there, and expect you to abide by them (many of them are common sense, but some are quite Byzantine).

 

[VRAndy]

In the meantime, best we lay low lest we raise the ire of the wikilords once again.

Lay low? So there are things you want to add to the article, but can't, because you don't have a post by a developer or other reputable source to back it up?

What possible information could you be thinking of, and where did it come from?


QUOTE
(but not before Godwin's Law was invoked once or twice biggrin.gif).

Really? I'm talking about the English Language Wikipedia. We're talking about the same one, right?

Here is the entire discussion about the Pandora article. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talkandora_(console)

And here is the edit history : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...;action=history (It looks like a lot of edits, but it's mostly vandalism removal.)

In both cases, I see a single person who drastically trims the article once, explains why he did it, then backs off when people explain he was wrong.


Unless the article was deleted previous to December 2007, and then recreated from scratch, I don't understand what people are describing. Are you just complaining about the tag? It's mostly there to warn readers that the info may be biased because it all comes from a single source. (Imagine if the single source were Microsoft.)

 

[atomicthumbs]

They can't accept the forums as sources because anybody could pretend to be a reputable source. It's their policy, and it hurts a few articles (like the Pandora article), but it's much better in the long run.

Edit:

This might help if it was a rule and not a policy.

 

[Eniko]

Personally I'm amazed the article hasn't been flagged for deletion because it's supposedly non notable.

 

[plopperz]

This is interesting.

 

[atomicthumbs]

Guys, I have confirmation from a Wikipedia admin that if we are sure that CraigIX is Craig Rothwell, etc., we can cite his forum posts. Cite away!

Personally I'm amazed the article hasn't been flagged for deletion because it's supposedly non notable.

It used to be tagged non-notable (as spam), but we fixed that up right quick.

 

[gruso]

In the meantime, best we lay low lest we raise the ire of the wikilords once again.

Lay low? So there are things you want to add to the article, but can't, because you don't have a post by a developer or other reputable source to back it up?
No, all I'm saying is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It looks great now, it's not a fan blog, it doesn't need any further attention until Pandora is released.

I don't have time to read through a bunch of wikitalk logs, the events I described largely took place on these forums anyway after some edits on wikipedia. Of course, at that point in time Pandora was far less real and still largely unknown.

 

[VRAndy]

No, all I'm saying is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It looks great now, it's not a fan blog, it doesn't need any further attention until Pandora is released.
Oh. In that case I agree entirely. Sorry.

They can't accept the forums as sources because anybody could pretend to be a reputable source.

The policy makes an exception for posts made by known experts if the information isn't available elsewhere. Usually this is only invoked for when famous people make blog posts about themselves, but it also applies here.

Posts by Craigix and EvilDragon are being used as cites in the article. So even if some people thought the article was spam back when it was first created in Dec '07, it didn't get deleted, and it's pretty decent today. The system is working as it should.

 

[atomicthumbs]

Is anybody listening to me? Let's cite some sources!

Edit:

Geez, fine. I took some time and fixed the article.

 

[PoisonedV]

The Wikipedia article is still broadly correct, and every time somebody tries to expand it, the nazipedians come and delete the additions for lack of "proper sources". They continue to insist that forum and dev blog posts are not legitimate sources, even though it is the people creating the device that are making those posts.

Once the Pandora is shipping and there are reviews on third party sites then we can add more info with references.

They also don't consider press releases viable sources, but third party articles that regurgitate the press release is!

my only suggestion is to remove the image. it is misleading, even if you mention what its missing or its not final, etc.

 

[VRAndy]

They also don't consider press releases viable sources, but third party articles that regurgitate the press release is!

[Citation Needed]

Geez, fine. I took some time and fixed the article.
Hah. While we were just arguing, AtomicThumbs actualy put in effort. Good work.

 

[Esn]

my only suggestion is to remove the image. it is misleading, even if you mention what its missing or its not final, etc.

It's nearly accurate. As far as I know, only the back of the case was changed, and the image doesn't show that anyway.

 

[Sammi]

Is anybody listening to me? Let's cite some sources!

Edit:

Geez, fine. I took some time and fixed the article.


Good job

The article is actually looking pretty good now as opposed to just a few days ago. Great effort everybody!


@PoisonedV
The pic is fine. Can't see how it could be misleading in any way.

 

[chole]

Perhaps it is notable that the Pandora (along with the iPhone/iPod Touch) was removed from "Handheld comparison" chart in the "History of video game consoles (seventh generation)" article early this morning. The reasoning behind it is sound, but it will have to be put back soon, hopefully some time next month.

 

[atomicthumbs]

Perhaps it is notable that the Pandora (along with the iPhone/iPod Touch) was removed from "Handheld comparison" chart in the "History of video game consoles (seventh generation)" article early this morning. The reasoning behind it is sound, but it will have to be put back soon, hopefully some time next month.

I restored it, as "unreleased console" isn't a proper reason for removal. If he can support his reason with reasoning, it goes back in the box again.

 

[chole]

I restored it, as "unreleased console" isn't a proper reason for removal. If he can support his reason with reasoning, it goes back in the box again.

And thus begins the edit war. Deathtrap3000 has already redeleted it.

[popcorn.jpg]

 

[atomicthumbs]

I restored it, as "unreleased console" isn't a proper reason for removal. If he can support his reason with reasoning, it goes back in the box again.

And thus begins the edit war. Deathtrap3000 has already redeleted it.

[popcorn.jpg]


QUOTE
Yeh sorry I meant to say please wait for release before re-adding, but I ran out of space. Its still not released and has the same function as many other devices that are not listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathtrap3000 (talk • contribs)
Alright. Thank you. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


no revert war for me

 

[Esn]

May I recommend that people avoid making edits like this one. Fanboyish writing has no place in Wikipedia; it annoys the regular editors and frankly that is never a good thing, because that's when you get deletion nominations and drastic article rewrites.

If we can keep the article neutral, it will be better for everyone.

 

[Dubya']

The Wikipedia article is still broadly correct, and every time somebody tries to expand it, the nazipedians come and delete the additions for lack of "proper sources".
I wonder how many of these demanding nazipedians are either fanboys of other handheld game systems or competitors of the Pandora (GPH and, theoretically, Gizmondo). Is there any way for everyone to see the IP addresses of the editors to perhaps get a lead on their possible associations or nationality?

 

[atomicthumbs]

I wonder how many of these demanding nazipedians are either fanboys of other handheld game systems or competitors of the Pandora (GPH and, theoretically, Gizmondo). Is there any way for everyone to see the IP addresses of the editors to perhaps get a lead on their possible associations or nationality?

My web browser froze and I refuse to type this again.