Ah, wikipedia, the domain of greatest common denomenator definitions.
Wasn't there just some scandal that saw many of the "editors" leaving because of manipulation of the entries? I think I read that on BoingBoing, or Fark.
I did some work on the main GH page, but haven't touched this one yet. It looks like David and BOZ have been doing some recent-ish work, though, which is good at least :D
Quite some time back, Allan. Yeah, I pulled in a few tidbits from the Europa reference, your site and Gary's A&E article in #15 but the article needs reworked/rescoped from scratch as does much Greyhawk & Gary-related. One problem is the scope of the mess, another being a few editors too resistant to updates which contradict their misunderstanding of nebulous or poorly remembered statement from Gary, etc.
@Rob: > if someone wants to volunteer to help redo this travesty of an article, please email me for the facts regarding this venerable Castle's history.
Thanks, Rob, but that's no good, sorry. It has to be published material - and even on that I've had to take liberties in the past elsewhere for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._A._R._Barker , for example (pretty much written/referenced from scratch) taking his original 1949(?)/50 "Tekumel" documents to be self-published brochures with extremely limited circulation rather than typescripts.
If one could simply "cite manuscript", I'd have a field day but anything vaguely approach "original research" from that angle is shot down in flames as a matter of course.
> Ah, wikipedia, the domain of greatest common denomenator definitions.
Read by millions of people and used by newspapers worldwide as a first point of call for their research. Do not underestimate the value of getting the story of RPGs done properly over there. The only better option is to write a history or other "useable" source and then cite that, there - presumption of accuracy from written sources is actually a far greater problem than general vandalism and manipulation, IMHO.
I might also be able to submit an article to Canonfire, the Greyhawk fansite. What is you're e-mail anyway? I haven't been able to find it anywhere.
April 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM
This, is so riddled with a partial treatment, lack of coherent treatment, lack of pertinent information, and has holes all over the place, to have made it a sickening read for me.
I guess it's about time to write another essay for print, perhaps in my CASTLE MAKER collection which I am taking notes for. In between, if someone wants to volunteer to help redo this travesty of an article, please email me for the facts regarding this venerable Castle's history.
8 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formAh, wikipedia, the domain of greatest common denomenator definitions.
Wasn't there just some scandal that saw many of the "editors" leaving because of manipulation of the entries?
I think I read that on BoingBoing, or Fark.
January 2, 2010 at 10:04 AM
I did some work on the main GH page, but haven't touched this one yet. It looks like David and BOZ have been doing some recent-ish work, though, which is good at least :D
Allan.
January 2, 2010 at 9:07 PM
Quite some time back, Allan. Yeah, I pulled in a few tidbits from the Europa reference, your site and Gary's A&E article in #15 but the article needs reworked/rescoped from scratch as does much Greyhawk & Gary-related.
One problem is the scope of the mess, another being a few editors too resistant to updates which contradict their misunderstanding of nebulous or poorly remembered statement from Gary, etc.
@Rob:
> if someone wants to volunteer to help redo this travesty of an article, please email me for the facts regarding this venerable Castle's history.
Thanks, Rob, but that's no good, sorry. It has to be published material - and even on that I've had to take liberties in the past elsewhere for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._A._R._Barker , for example (pretty much written/referenced from scratch) taking his original 1949(?)/50 "Tekumel" documents to be self-published brochures with extremely limited circulation rather than typescripts.
If one could simply "cite manuscript", I'd have a field day but anything vaguely approach "original research" from that angle is shot down in flames as a matter of course.
Cheers,
David.
January 3, 2010 at 12:15 AM
> Ah, wikipedia, the domain of greatest common denomenator definitions.
Read by millions of people and used by newspapers worldwide as a first point of call for their research.
Do not underestimate the value of getting the story of RPGs done properly over there.
The only better option is to write a history or other "useable" source and then cite that, there - presumption of accuracy from written sources is actually a far greater problem than general vandalism and manipulation, IMHO.
January 3, 2010 at 12:20 AM
Hmm. I guess that leaves my essay for Castle Maker then. (Adds to "To Do" List)...
January 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM
Ironically, Rob, if you were to post said facts here on the blog, they would then be fine to use on WP. Go figure!
-DYA
February 5, 2010 at 12:48 AM
Seriously I'd think they'd except information from one of the guys who ran the campaign! Maybe the Greyhawk Wiki would be more receptive?
April 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM
I might also be able to submit an article to Canonfire, the Greyhawk fansite. What is you're e-mail anyway? I haven't been able to find it anywhere.
April 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM