Comments on: Third Time’s the Charm… Or not. http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2008/04/01/third-times-the-charm-or-not/ A blog about the Battlestar Wiki Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:06:58 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Battlestar Wiki Blog » Battlestar Wiki’s Quiznos Expense Account http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2008/04/01/third-times-the-charm-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-9734 Battlestar Wiki Blog » Battlestar Wiki’s Quiznos Expense Account Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:39:05 +0000 http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/?p=302#comment-9734 [...] reaction to what I have been posting earlier regarding our (now deleted) entry on Wikipedia and attempts by Wikia to buy us out, I’ve been notified by our accounting department that we [...] [...] reaction to what I have been posting earlier regarding our (now deleted) entry on Wikipedia and attempts by Wikia to buy us out, I’ve been notified by our accounting department that we [...]

]]> By: Steelviper http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2008/04/01/third-times-the-charm-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-9621 Steelviper Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:58:54 +0000 http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/?p=302#comment-9621 Wow! Small world. GreenReaper works for Stardock, and is also an admin over at the Galciv wiki. I briefly helped out over there when I first got that game. Glad you stopped by, GreenReaper! Wow! Small world.

GreenReaper works for Stardock, and is also an admin over at the Galciv wiki. I briefly helped out over there when I first got that game.

Glad you stopped by, GreenReaper!

]]> By: Battlestar Wiki Blog » Beyond the Veil: What does a screener look like? http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2008/04/01/third-times-the-charm-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-9599 Battlestar Wiki Blog » Beyond the Veil: What does a screener look like? Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:40:57 +0000 http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/?p=302#comment-9599 [...] those of you who want to know about screeners and what being a “non-notable” (yet oddly relevant!) site gets you, I’m going to take you into a brief, yet tantalizing glimpse of what reporters and [...] [...] those of you who want to know about screeners and what being a “non-notable” (yet oddly relevant!) site gets you, I’m going to take you into a brief, yet tantalizing glimpse of what reporters and [...]

]]> By: Joe Beaudoin Jr. http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2008/04/01/third-times-the-charm-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-9598 Joe Beaudoin Jr. Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:48:49 +0000 http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/?p=302#comment-9598 Hi GreenReaper, Thanks for commenting! :D Everything you said is true. It is impossible for Wikipedia to encompass the sum of all human knowledge... which is why it is always in an unpredictable state of flux. I do agree that Wikipedia isn't inherently bad... actually, it has no inherent properties, other than the attributes that its contributors and its leadership (for a lack of a more precise term) give it. Again, thanks for commenting! It's refreshing that I'm not the only one seeing things, as it were! Cheers, Joe Hi GreenReaper,

Thanks for commenting! :D Everything you said is true. It is impossible for Wikipedia to encompass the sum of all human knowledge… which is why it is always in an unpredictable state of flux.

I do agree that Wikipedia isn’t inherently bad… actually, it has no inherent properties, other than the attributes that its contributors and its leadership (for a lack of a more precise term) give it.

Again, thanks for commenting! It’s refreshing that I’m not the only one seeing things, as it were!

Cheers,

Joe

]]> By: GreenReaper http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2008/04/01/third-times-the-charm-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-9497 GreenReaper Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:30:59 +0000 http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/?p=302#comment-9497 WikiFur's article was deleted twice, too - I endorsed it the first time, and opposed it the second, and lost (barely). For all I know, it may be deleted a third time in the future, despite now having the published scholarly reference that Wikipedia craves. Wikipedia's theory is that every worthwhile fact should potentially be able to be referenced to some third-party source. It's a nice theory, but the existence of places like this (and WikiFur) makes it clear that it isn't enough to encompass the sum of interesting human knowledge. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is inherently bad, just that it's not the be-all and end-all of information. Like all encyclopedias, it is a starting point - not the end of the journey. WikiFur’s article was deleted twice, too – I endorsed it the first time, and opposed it the second, and lost (barely). For all I know, it may be deleted a third time in the future, despite now having the published scholarly reference that Wikipedia craves.

Wikipedia’s theory is that every worthwhile fact should potentially be able to be referenced to some third-party source. It’s a nice theory, but the existence of places like this (and WikiFur) makes it clear that it isn’t enough to encompass the sum of interesting human knowledge.

That doesn’t mean Wikipedia is inherently bad, just that it’s not the be-all and end-all of information. Like all encyclopedias, it is a starting point – not the end of the journey.

]]>