| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Faraer |
Posted - 02 Apr 2006 : 23:11:26
The Realms entries on wikipedia.org are awful: badly written, incomplete, misleading, and full of factual mistakes. What do we do about this? |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 19 Apr 2006 : 07:05:52
Hmmm...seems the Elminster Aumar portion has been removed....better write up a new one while you can Faerar!
J. Grenemyer |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Apr 2006 : 01:28:58
That should pretty much do it. It's a statement supported by actual fact, rather than rumor and is straight from the creator's mouth. Who better to understand the terms of Ed's contract with regard to WotC and the matter of promoting Elminster.
I'll be curious to read any counter-argument... if any.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 18:47:38
An investigation by Nature found the average science entry in Wikipedia to have about a third more inaccuracies than Britannica. In other words, it's about as reliable as print references if read critically and intelligently. And this gives it a legitimate credibility, which unfortunately, I'm sure, leads to some credulous readings of the parts of it which are shoddy and rife with errors. I think that fixing the most egregious ones is worthwhile for anyone concerned with accurate portrayal of the Realms -- I've started a thread for making sure corrections we make are accurate.
Anyway, after researching Wikipedia protocols a bit more, I posted my Elminster reply (here). |
| GungHo |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 18:08:59
Wikipedia is dodgy at best for many things. If you want to get a very high-level overview of something, you can give it a quick look-see, but if you want beyond that... eh. I wouldn't debate anyone on anything gleaned there, and I certainly wouldn't use it as a source. You can use it to find sources for things, though.
The best thing I've gotten off of Wikipedia for the Realms are the electronic maps of Faerun, but I imagine they will eventually pulled for copyright violations... if they ever get around to it. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 01:12:24
I mean... I could understand the revision to Faraer's entry *if* the information being revised included actual notes or references that are true, and by definition of Realms truth I mean lore that has come from Ed's quill and has not been superceded by published Realmslore from WotC.
But the very fact that this Jarlaxle character is willing to ignore actual truth from Ed and replace it with largely unfounded rumor more than makes the case for why the FR wiki is not a healthy resource for Realms fan.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 01:06:10
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
So, 'JarlaxleArtemis' reverted my deletion of the Elminster slur. He invites discussion. How's this?quote:
"Elminster is generally understood to be an alter ego of Greenwood."
It is not 'generally understood' -- it's no more than an internet rumour, and even the idea that it's a common one is unsubstantiatable. It's mere gossip, and so doesn't belong in this entry.
Factually, speaking as a 17-year Realms expert and correspondent of Ed, it's simply untrue. Elminster isn't even Ed's favourite character.
If, as you say, 'It says Elminster is an alter ego of Ed Greenwood on the inside of the back cover for "Elminster: The Making of a Mage.' -- I don't have the paperback to verify it -- this doesn't make it true, but would be a symptom of TSR's perversion of Elminster into an 'iconic character'.
Why does this not surprise me  .
"Generally understood" he says. Well thats all fine and good... but the fact, yes a fact, that Ed himself has said otherwise, the creator of the setting and the character in question, should be more than enough proof to counter such an [mis]understanding.
You've cover it well enough Faraer. And I second Kentinal's motion to invite this "JarlaxleArtemis" to Candlekeep and discuss the issue with Ed personally. Perhaps the word from the Old Bearded One will be enough... although, if this Jarlaxle is so willing to put truth to a widely held rumor from the web simply because it is "generally understood", I have some doubts that even the words of Ed will convince him otherwise.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 00:10:11
Also, the dictionary definition of 'alter ego', and Wikipedia's alter ego entry which uses the term 'psychologically identical', obviously don't apply even in the loosest sense. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 23:56:38
The reply, appears correct, for further debate WotC required that Ed get rid of one of his three grumpy/ecentric old men. I believe THO posted here somewhere within Questions for Ed.
Of course you can also invite, in your reply to come to candlekeep, to get Ed's reply as a posible soluction to having a disputed entry.
Edit: One letter missing, one replaced. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 23:44:35
So, 'JarlaxleArtemis' reverted my deletion of the Elminster slur. He invites discussion. How's this?quote:
"Elminster is generally understood to be an alter ego of Greenwood."
It is not 'generally understood' -- it's no more than an internet rumour, and even the idea that it's a common one is unsubstantiatable. It's mere gossip, and so doesn't belong in this entry.
Factually, speaking as a 17-year Realms expert and correspondent of Ed, it's simply untrue. Elminster isn't even Ed's favourite character.
If, as you say, 'It says Elminster is an alter ego of Ed Greenwood on the inside of the back cover for "Elminster: The Making of a Mage.' -- I don't have the paperback to verify it -- this doesn't make it true, but would be a symptom of TSR's perversion of Elminster into an 'iconic character'.
|
| scererar |
Posted - 03 Apr 2006 : 04:21:07
I also asked a question about this particular site, and have been wary of it ever since. I think taking time to correct deficiencies in realmslore is a great idea, but what would stop one from going back over all of your hard work in doing so? My advice would be to take the info for what it is worth, or maybe we could devise some sort of effort to make our own version here, which would allow it to be written in a controlled environment. I would be willing to pitch in, and have already offered my services to Alaundo for any projects he deems me worthy of participating in  . |
| Dhomal |
Posted - 03 Apr 2006 : 04:01:35
Hello-
Maybe it would be in order to just mention the existence of this very site? 
It certainly would solve a lot of writing in duplicate!
Dhomal |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Apr 2006 : 03:26:54
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Yes, the main problems I see are the etiquette of how you go about it which I just don't know, the problem of corrections being reverted, and of course the amount of writing work it would take to get those pages in shape.
At one point the Elminster entry included the sentence 'Elminster is generally understood to be an alter ego of the author, despite Greenwood vehemently denying this himself.' Good grief.
Yeah... While I do often turn to Wikipedia for information, I also know that with 8,000,001 hands in the pot, the info is not to be trusted. It's good for a general overview of something, but it's hardly a reputable and exhaustive source. I know that the site creators -- especially after that recent flap -- claim that things eventually get straightened out and corrected, but with any fandom-related stuff, you can't rely on that. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 03 Apr 2006 : 03:21:59
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Yes, the main problems I see are the etiquette of how you go about it which I just don't know, the problem of corrections being reverted, and of course the amount of writing work it would take to get those pages in shape.
Pretty much, wander in and change it. For best results, create a username and give attributions. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 03 Apr 2006 : 03:20:01
Yes, the main problems I see are the etiquette of how you go about it which I just don't know, the problem of corrections being reverted, and of course the amount of writing work it would take to get those pages in shape.
At one point the Elminster entry included the sentence 'Elminster is generally understood to be an alter ego of the author, despite Greenwood vehemently denying this himself.' Good grief.
Last time I looked, the Star Wars pages were totally EUcentric, not even mentioning the George Lucas version of things where the EU differed. The serious rather than the fannish way to do it would of course be to give both, attributed. Of course this is an interesting parody of how academia works traditionally. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Apr 2006 : 02:10:26
quote:
Originally posted by FaraerWhat do we do about this?
If I weren't aware of something relevant to this discussion already... I'd say we should do all we can to correct the rather misinformed entries in the Realms wiki.
But given the state of the SWWiki... and the fact that most of the "corrections" I've made to entries that have such obvious mistakes (I mean, most SW fans should by now realise that Darth Ruin is in fact an official reference)... have been changed back to their original incorrect form has pretty much stopped me from continuing on there.
I'd love to try my hand at the Realms Wiki... but I have other Candlekeep projects to attend to.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2006 : 23:59:10
Yeah, anyone could correct them...
WF: Yeah, I discovered that other site quite by accident, myself. There was some nifty stuff there, but not a lot. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 02 Apr 2006 : 23:56:17
Edit and add to them? Anybody can, after all.
*looks at the links* There... exists a Candlekeep.co.uk? I never knew that. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 02 Apr 2006 : 23:54:21
The basic answer is to enter your own corrections, anyone can make changes to that site. You do not even need to be a member.
For major changes it is proper to note why they were made. |
|
|
