gwx on www.wikipedia.org

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I wonder who put it up on wiki to begin with. I think thats taking fanboism or egocentricity (whichever the case may be) a bit too far.

There are 3 people who have edited the topic.
The creator was "Danstein" who, judgeing by the timeing of the edits is "Seth"
I was one of the editors when I put the deletion proposal.
I don't know the other editor (IP: 68.174.7.86)

*edit* Seth: see my edit in the last post

[Ducimus]

meh, i wasn't intending to be insulting. Its just theres a time and place for things. Wiki in my mind is where your supposed to find historical or factual information - its a reference source. That said, i don't really consider it authoritive either.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

meh, i wasn't intending to be insulting. Its just theres a time and place for things. Wiki in my mind is where your supposed to find historical or factual information - its a reference source. That said, i don't really consider it authoritive either.

:rotfl:Are we thinking of the same Wikipedia? The one where hordes of internet beardos have posted such wonders as in-depth analyses of every Simpsons episode ever?

[_Seth_]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

:rotfl:Are we thinking of the same Wikipedia? The one where hordes of internet beardos have posted such wonders as in-depth analyses of every Simpsons episode ever?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Right on the spot, mate!!:rotfl::rotfl:

Edit: Just a note: At my university (University of Tromsø, Norway), we arent allowed to use references from Wikipeida in our exam essays , since its considered a unreliable source..

[Ducimus]

Yeah i know, silly me. I just dont think stuff like game mods belong on wiki, but then again, theres a ton of stuff on there that probbly doesnt need to be either - thats why i don't consider it authoritve. Anything historical for instance, is just the same reguritated information from sites like uboat.net

[_Seth_]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Yeah i know, silly me. I just dont think stuff like game mods belong on wiki, but then again, theres a ton of stuff on there that probbly doesnt need to be either - thats why i don't consider it authoritve. Anything historical for instance, is just the same reguritated information from sites like uboat.net

I respect you view, mate, and i think you have a reasonable point there. I just believe that the future for computer games will be more in the hands of the communities, regarding addons and such.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Yeah i know, silly me. I just dont think stuff like game mods belong on wiki, but then again, theres a ton of stuff on there that probbly doesnt need to be either - thats why i don't consider it authoritve. Anything historical for instance, is just the same reguritated information from sites like uboat.net

No...not silly you at all mate
Your simply stating your opinion and I for one think it's a very valid one
Another part of me is also saying "kudos to GWX"
When I'm browsing on the web for info re: warfare...I look at the Wiki for the odd reference...but if I'm after something with more weight or authority I look at official/government type sites

[_Seth_]

Originally Posted by Letum

There are 3 people who have edited the topic.
The creator was "Danstein" who, judgeing by the timeing of the edits is "Seth"
I was one of the editors when I put the deletion proposal.
I don't know the other editor (IP: 68.174.7.86)

*edit* Seth: see my edit in the last post

From Wiki:

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editors' consensus.

I consider www.subsim.com as a reliable source. What in the article isnt a well known fact? That the computer game companies are trying to make better games than the rest of the companies? And arent the playes who modify these games dedicated? If you read the article carefully, you will see that there are not one of the sentences, nor even the letters or paragraphs, who is stating that this is my personal point of view. And im neutral as a swedish merchant in 1941..If you want, i can fill the article up with references and link to reliable sources, but i believe my subsim & gw team links are enough (for now..)
@ducimus: No hard (or hurt..) feelings, mate!

BTW: Its good to have a discussion without name-calling and such bad things!

[The Munster]

Originally Posted by Letum

There are 3 people who have edited the topic.
The creator was "Danstein" who, judgeing by the timeing of the edits is "Seth"
I was one of the editors when I put the deletion proposal.
I don't know the other editor (IP: 68.174.7.86)

*edit* Seth: see my edit in the last post

What's the big deal about it being in there for ?

I think Letum and his BIG proclamation,


"TIME" Magazine's man of the year 2006 (really!)

smacks of egocentricity !

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kpt. Munson

What's the big deal about it being in there for ?

I just read it, and I think it's pretty lame. It really does read like a fanboy love letter.

I think Letum and his BIG proclamation,


"TIME" Magazine's man of the year 2006 (really!)

smacks of egocentricity !

Why? He really is TIME's man of the year.

And so's his wife.

[_Seth_]

I just read it, and I think it's pretty lame. It really does read like a fanboy love letter.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Thats also a way of lookin' at it, Steve!

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Why? He really is TIME's man of the year.

And so's his wife.

:rotfl:
Do you think we should tell him Steve?

Anyhow, Munson, I havent accused anyone of egocentricity at all.

[The Munster]

Originally Posted by Letum

:rotfl:
Do you think we should tell him Steve?

Anyhow, Munson, I havent accused anyone of egocentricity at all.

I didn't state that you had but tell me, Is there any relevance with the 'TIME magazine man of the year' thing to Simulation games, Submarine or otherwise ?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kpt. Munson

I didn't state that you had but tell me, Is there any relevance with the 'TIME magazine man of the year' thing to Simulation games, Submarine or otherwise ?

None at all. It's just a very funny joke.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...061225,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...9514%2C00.html

[The Munster]

Oh Oh .. I've clicked the links and think I owe Letum an apology.

SORRY.