[Mdkcheatz]

It is well known that it is hard to edit existing articles from wikipedia without it being hard facts which for some reason was accidentally left out... Usually within 1 minute of editing a bot will scan an remove if the edit seems illegitimate. If you can survive the bot then that means you have to survive the Administration which more often than not will tend to eventually find and self assess the newly added material.

I recently added my own material to the Project 64 page of wikipedia under the newly created Cheats section. I spent ages formatting a brief explanation of how cheat codes work for it and had logged in recently to notice how it was edited and most of the hardest and mos detailed parts were edited out. The entire Cheats section was not removed completely, but about 50% of its data eliminated.

I checked the history of the edit to make sure it was not a regular user who had been grieving to see that it was in fact just an admin. based on the edit comment, I felt that this edit was unjustified and emailed him (or her) as to challenge this decision... here is the email:

"Jakezing,

I have noticed that a section of the "project 64" wikipedia section has been edited. The comment regarding this edit states that "this is not a guide nor a review, so dont use I[t]"... I was concerned considering the context of your accusation. I disagree with your decision on editing this section based on your reasoning. Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia which by definition does not state that it's "not a guide nor a review." In fact... according specifically to it's meanig, explains how it's "a "[well-]rounded education, meaning 'general knowledge.'" And thus I conclude that knowledge is knowledge and doesn't exempt guide's nor reviews. "

I would like to see what all of you think about the topic.

Would you agree with me or disagree? why?

Do you think Admins need to be careful with what they edit?

Do you think they are misconceiving the true definition of an Encyclopedia (wikipedia)?

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

its a user editable web encyclopedia.

admins should lay the **** off and gtfo.

 

[Mdkcheatz]

yes

its a user editable web encyclopedia.

admins should lay the **** off and gtfo.

YES EXACTLY! I mean if its obvious that additions do not relate to the subject or topic, or are infringing copyrights or plagiarism, then that justifies editing... but to edit something that is perfectly legal, in a moral and knowledge sense, I think they go way too overboard on wikipedia...

 

[Proto]

Oh cmon people, it's not like you don't know why admins and some amount of control should exist in this kind of projects. Granted, the system may not be perfect, but there are persons behind the system, and those people make mistakes. It's not like it is the system's fault.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

>.< that sounds like communist speak.

 

[Mdkcheatz]

well i agree there should be control, but to an extent, my additions passed the bot test with no problem, but was truly wrecked (not annihilated) by and admin because of a personal inaccurate judgment full of flaw and illogical reasoning...

 

[sgsavvy]

i think they are aggressive but still effective.

 

[gamefreak94]

Yeah some of the admins there are [email protected]$$es. Something like this has also happened to me.

A year or so ago, I edited the Wikipedia article for the novel "The Hound of the Baskerville" and put in a really good family tree for the characters in the novel (it's somewhat confusing as with most unabridged versions of novels), but a week or so later, it was gone oO

Since then, I have vowed never to even add an alphabet to Wikipedia again.

>.< that sounds like communist speak.

*waits for Proto to psot a WoT full of jargon* :lol:

 

[D.D.]

I want to be on the OP's side, but I also know theres two sides to a story. Maybe there were some grammatical or style discrepancies in the original edit you provided? The administrator/mod may have just looked at it and did a quick edit without giving it much thought (the university/college professor/TA syndrome). If you can post it here, maybe we can take a look at it as well?

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

Since then, I have vowed never to even add an letter to Wikipedia again.

Fixed

I want to be on the OP's side, but I also know theres two sides to a story. Maybe there were some grammatical or style discrepancies in the original edit you provided? The administrator/mod may have just looked at it and did a quick edit without giving it much thought (the university/college professor/TA syndrome). If you can post it here, maybe we can take a look at it as well?

or you can just view the diff?

Project64 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Proto]

Since then, I have vowed never to even add a letter to Wikipedia again.

Fixed even more.

People, there are a reason talk pages exist. Before you commit any big changes or include a significantly big section, it's better to discuss it relevance in the talk page with the other people that maintain the page. Wikipedia is a community project. Stress on the community part.

 

[PsyMan]

What's a Cheat Code section doing on the article anyway? A simple mention to it is enough. The PJ64 manual is there for all in-depth info regarding the emulator features. Wikipedia is not a manual.

 

[D.D.]

or you can just view the diff?

Project64 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for that. I just use Wikipedia lightly so I didn't know there was that option. I can't help but wonder if Mdkcheatz did a better job formatting than your link would suggest. Perhaps the original would be better still.

Having viewed it though, I think I can see why the edit was made. First as some mentioned, Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias are not meant to be manuals for software and a reference of the feature and a pointer to where to find more information would suffice. Secondly, the style in which it is written, at a glance, seems to differ from what an educational piece is usually in.

For example, if the yellow highlighted part is what you wrote, I would firstly eliminate first person and second person usage. Although thats what may have been provided by Gent, it would probably have been wise to edit the guide first to make it fit the mold of most educational pieces. You could have then presented it to Gent to verify your version's integrity.

To be honest, I myself would have eliminated the second last and last lines as well, as they were to act as support for the guide which has now been trimmed off. Now they are superfluous and serve no purpose.

 

[Demi Fiend]

Mdkcheatz.. Let them burn... They aren't worth your guide if they choped it in half. Don't waste your energy with this matter, it isn't worth your time. Just post your guide in a place that it will be accepted. Wikipedia isn't the center of the universe.

I can't vote in the poll because there isn't an option such as "too *******s"

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

Thanks for that. I just use Wikipedia lightly so I didn't know there was that option. I can't help but wonder if Mdkcheatz did a better job formatting than your link would suggest. Perhaps the original would be better still.

Having viewed it though, I think I can see why the edit was made. First as some mentioned, Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias are not meant to be manuals for software and a reference of the feature and a pointer to where to find more information would suffice. Secondly, the style in which it is written, at a glance, seems to differ from what an educational piece is usually in.

For example, if the yellow highlighted part is what you wrote, I would firstly eliminate first person and second person usage. Although thats what may have been provided by Gent, it would probably have been wise to edit the guide first to make it fit the mold of most educational pieces. You could have then presented it to Gent to verify your version's integrity.

To be honest, I myself would have eliminated the second last and last lines as well, as they were to act as support for the guide which has now been trimmed off. Now they are superfluous and serve no purpose.

i somewhat agree. if the article was written in a neutral manner, rather then first person it would probably still be on there.

 

[JJXB]

I've never added wiki edits or anything myself and never intend to. but someone i know online edited one of the final fantasy entries, adding a picture of the PSP boxart that he took himself. then wiki took that down as "copyright violation" or something like that even though it was his own legally bought copy and he took and uploaded them himself.

 

[Proto]

or something like that even though it was his own legally bought copy and he took and uploaded them himself.

He doesn't own the property rights for the art, animation or images used in the game, whether its your own photo, copy or not. You have a right to execute the software in your copy, you have some rights regarding fair use, but never does it say that you own anything else.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

you can upload such images as long as they are low quality and are stated to be demonstration art.

 

[Samor]

I've only made a few small wiki edits when I was 100% sure information was missing or incorrect... one should be careful with just putting assumptions on there.

 

[Proto]

you can upload such images as long as they are low quality and are stated to be demonstration art.

Since that falls under fair usage, and Wikipedia rpefers to only use such when it is strictly necessary, if it's not an important addition to the article's content you can expect it to see it deleted.