|
|
As the author of that "great" post (lol). I have one request.
Please abide by Wikipedias rules if your going to do this. Dont give me or TL a bad name. Thats all i ask.
|
I couldn't agree with you more. I tried to be very polite in the wikipedia article but the reason I mentioned it on the SC2 forum is that I wanted to make sure to strike the right tone. I'm happy to listen to ANY input from the TL community on how I could make the section better
|
On May 30 2010 14:15 Zuchinni_one wrote:I couldn't agree with you more. I tried to be very polite in the wikipedia article but the reason I mentioned it on the SC2 forum is that I wanted to make sure to strike the right tone. I'm happy to listen to ANY input from the TL community on how I could make the section better
More neutral tone might be good. Stick to the facts. Also the 94% dissaproval poll is a fact.
|
The formatting needs work, it's not very wiki like.
Tone seems alright...
-edit-
agree with above ^
Writing something like
"a recent forum poll conducted showed 94% of players disapproved of direction blizzard was taking [ref]"
|
|
|
Having many edits to wikipedia, I would change the following:
- Don't bold the "heavy criticism w/r/t privacy" bit. It is not needed and flags it as inflammatory. - Use bullets instead of "-".
Formatting goes a long way to making edits "stick".
|
|
Yea I doubt a blizzard guy took it off. It was probably automatically removed by the wikipedia bot. Not sure if undoing the undo will fix it. If there is some word or something in the post that makes the bot not like it, it will just remove it again.
|
Really, Wikipedia is not a platform to "get attention" from Blizzard or any group for that matter. You're essentially vandalizing the page.
|
On May 30 2010 14:32 koppik wrote: Really, Wikipedia is not a platform to "get attention" from Blizzard or anyone. You're essentially vandalizing the page.
Not really. Though it needs to better written. Someone go do that. The current wording is really bad. Its fucked up enough that you can write it impartially and it still comes off overtly against blizzard.
|
I don't think this is proper material to be put on Wikipedia. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Starcraft fans soapbox to complain about features they want to see in Starcraft 2.
Wikipedia is having a hard time meeting the standards for a reputable source of information, this is not going to help.
|
On May 30 2010 14:35 alexanderzero wrote: I don't think this is proper material to be put on Wikipedia. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Starcraft fans soapbox to complain about features they want to see in Starcraft 2.
Wikipedia is having a hard time meeting the standards for a reputable source of information, this is not going to help.
What about that is wrong? Just curious. Isn't it under criticism from fans for the reasons listed?
|
For one thing the whole "criticism" section on the wiki page reads like it was written by a high-schooler. It also doesn't match the format of the rest of the article.
|
On May 30 2010 14:32 koppik wrote: Really, Wikipedia is not a platform to "get attention" from Blizzard or any group for that matter. You're essentially vandalizing the page. Vandalizing? LOL do you understand the concept of user generated content at all?
|
On May 30 2010 14:32 koppik wrote: Really, Wikipedia is not a platform to "get attention" from Blizzard or any group for that matter. You're essentially vandalizing the page.
Really? I hope you are not serious.
|
On May 30 2010 14:06 Zuchinni_one wrote: Odds are that this section will get 'cleaned' regularly by Blizzard so maybe some of you could help me to maintain it and LOL, moreover, it's hilarious that you seem to think the only people who would have a problem with your idea are cloak-and-dagger corporate Nazi censors.
Dude, your idea is not very good. Sorry. =D
|
On May 30 2010 14:35 alexanderzero wrote: I don't think this is proper material to be put on Wikipedia. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Starcraft fans soapbox to complain about features they want to see in Starcraft 2.
Wikipedia is having a hard time meeting the standards for a reputable source of information, this is not going to help. Reporting criticism is perfectly legitimate. It doesn't make a source 'disreputable' unless you're on the receiving end of said criticism lol
|
The main issue is that it's designed to elicit a reaction from Blizzard. Writing a criticism section is by itself fine. You'd need more than a thread on an internet forum to justify writing the section, however.
|
I approve of the trimmed down version of the section now up, there's not much need to list every single point in the article.
|
On May 30 2010 14:40 madsweepslol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 14:32 koppik wrote: Really, Wikipedia is not a platform to "get attention" from Blizzard or any group for that matter. You're essentially vandalizing the page. Vandalizing? LOL do you understand the concept of user generated content at all? There's the classic problem here of whether marginal nerd rage on TeamLiquid is currently "noteworthy" or not. I mean, I can't add my own personal criticisms of Obama to the Obama page under "criticism". There needs to be major, noteworthy criticism first -- and it generally needs to stand for quite some time and become "history" first, as well.
|
On May 30 2010 14:35 alexanderzero wrote: I don't think this is proper material to be put on Wikipedia. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Starcraft fans soapbox to complain about features they want to see in Starcraft 2.
Wikipedia is having a hard time meeting the standards for a reputable source of information, this is not going to help.
criticism to topics is noteworthy and can also be found to other topics on wikipedia or even printed encyclopedias. hell, modern warfare 2 has a separate controversies article on wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#Criticisms
|
On May 30 2010 14:44 koppik wrote: The main issue is that it's designed to elicit a reaction from Blizzard. Writing a criticism section is by itself fine. You'd need more than a thread on an internet forum to justify writing the section, however.
Perhaps for the time being, but really as soon as a fansite makes a official statement, its 100% legit. gogo tl?.
Who the hell wrote "angst"? How about "concerns?". Already fixed.
On May 30 2010 14:45 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 14:40 madsweepslol wrote:On May 30 2010 14:32 koppik wrote: Really, Wikipedia is not a platform to "get attention" from Blizzard or any group for that matter. You're essentially vandalizing the page. Vandalizing? LOL do you understand the concept of user generated content at all? There's the classic problem here of whether marginal nerd rage on TeamLiquid is currently "noteworthy" or not. I mean, I can't add my own personal criticisms of Obama to the Obama page under "criticism". There needs to be major, noteworthy criticism first -- and it generally needs to stand for quite some time and become "history" first, as well.
Four Thousand People. There are entire articles to organizations with less impact and less people.
|
On May 30 2010 14:46 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 14:44 koppik wrote: The main issue is that it's designed to elicit a reaction from Blizzard. Writing a criticism section is by itself fine. You'd need more than a thread on an internet forum to justify writing the section, however. Four Thousand People. Their are entire articles to organizations with less impact and less people. Uh? If you can prove that four thousand people are on board with the criticisms you list, then you have a pretty solid case for noteworthiness.
|
On May 30 2010 14:46 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 14:44 koppik wrote: The main issue is that it's designed to elicit a reaction from Blizzard. Writing a criticism section is by itself fine. You'd need more than a thread on an internet forum to justify writing the section, however. Perhaps for the time being, but really as soon as a fansite makes a official statement, its 100% legit. gogo tl?. You really need more than one, but you definitely need one. Like, the CoD:MW2 criticism section has about ten sources from major video game journalists.
The big, overriding issue though is that Wikipedia is not a platform for activism. It's not a soapbox.
|
Moreover, the single source is a TL forum post with a couple of polls. It seems so amateurish. :-/
|
On May 30 2010 14:51 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 14:46 Half wrote:On May 30 2010 14:44 koppik wrote: The main issue is that it's designed to elicit a reaction from Blizzard. Writing a criticism section is by itself fine. You'd need more than a thread on an internet forum to justify writing the section, however. Four Thousand People. Their are entire articles to organizations with less impact and less people. Uh? If you can prove that four thousand people are on board with the criticisms you list, then you have a pretty solid case for noteworthiness. did you bother to read the initial post?
this link: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014
takes you to a poll in the OP that has the question "Do you like the direction bnet 2.0 is taking?" 4516 - NO 284 - YES
though this IS an internet poll, you still have to be registered to vote which raises it's significance drastically.
On May 30 2010 14:55 kajeus wrote: Moreover, the single source is a TL forum post with a couple of polls. It seems so amateurish. :-/ the issue is also discussed in the largest german sc/bw/sc2 forum: http://starcraft2.ingame.de/forum/showthread.php?t=187979 feel free to link the thread on wiki. it may take some days for me to bother registering on enwiki to link it myself.
|
On May 30 2010 14:51 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 14:46 Half wrote:On May 30 2010 14:44 koppik wrote: The main issue is that it's designed to elicit a reaction from Blizzard. Writing a criticism section is by itself fine. You'd need more than a thread on an internet forum to justify writing the section, however. Four Thousand People. Their are entire articles to organizations with less impact and less people. Uh? If you can prove that four thousand people are on board with the criticisms you list, then you have a pretty solid case for noteworthiness. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014
4500 against it in the poll, 200 for it.
though this IS an internet poll, you still have to be registered to vote which raises it's significance drastically.
And the fact that it so unilateral. Were not talking about 60-40. Not even 80-20. This is 96-4. Among a sample size of fans of 5000 people.
|
I understand how discussions about flaws or a degree of criticism can be really helpful in providing vital feedback to Blizzard in order to improve their service. They have done changes which were apparently due to discussions and polls in the community sites and primary this one. But recently the forums have turned from healthy criticism to pure hatred and disregardment of any good qualities, which makes me sad and/or angry. Do you people don't want the game to succeed? I do. And I see all the potential that this game has for being as good or a better competitive game than the original SC:BW. Bnet 2.0 is constantly undergoing big changes, but instead of seeing this people just dig the same hole. I can go on probably allot more but I'll just stop and say: If you don't like the game just wait a while or don't play it and with that don't hate on it. If you don't want the game to succeed, DIE!
|
|
Who ever edited is good. We don't need a huge list of criticisms on wikipedia. A short and concise summary is good not only for us but for potential buyers as well. The average joe doesn't care about 90% of things we are looking for and going about shouting how bad B.net 2.0 is especially about privacy will probably turn regular people away. So it's good that we are brining these issues up, but please don't hurt sales just because you're not getting what you want. Especially when B.net 2.0 Engineers are reading wikipedia as well. Be supportive.
|
|
i disagree as the opinions of the users expressed in the poll is not "self-published" by tl.net.
|
TL is none of them. And it's about itself, because its judging the community reaction so obviously one would use a community site. So even if it was, it would be about itself. The Opinion of Teamliquid.net is obviously a good source on the opinion of teamliquid.net. Considering we are the largest fan website concerning SC2, its fairly solid.
Also...omg Teamliquid doesn't have a wikipedia page. We have millions of hits. Gogo power rangers.
|
The criticism doesn't need its own headline given that other criticisms are already listed under 'Development,' for example:
Rob Pardo indicated in a June interview that LAN support would not be included in StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.[52][53][54] Removing LAN has the effect of forcing players to connect through Blizzard's servers, Battle.net, before playing multiplayer locally. This has created a large amount of protest mainly in the form of online petitions, and calls for boycotting the game.[55] It has been reported that Blizzard is considering implementing a system whereby a LAN connection is possible after first authenticating with Battle.net.[56] It should be noted that a similar controversy occurred over the game Half Life 2.[57] In the original StarCraft, as well as many other multiplayer games, LAN is still ideal for use in tournaments for the exceptionally low latency.[58]
StarCraft II has been criticized for its lengthy development time. Wired Magazine in its annual Vaporware Award, ranked StarCraft II first among the delayed technology products of 2009.[63] Starcraft II is now set for a July 27, 2010 release date according to Blizzard.[64]
For further reference you might want to also look at the Wikipedia page of Modern Warfare 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Warfare_2
A short paragraph in the 'Development' section reads:
Infinity Ward announced on October 2009 that the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 would not support the use of user-run dedicated servers or in-game console commands. Such announcement was received poorly by some members of the PC community,[26] a negative response that eventually drew Infinity Ward's own response on the matter in an effort to put the community at ease.[29][41]
So yeah, word it better, reference more than one source, possibly a post on BNet's official forums as well as TL.net, and throw it in the Development section rather than giving it its own headline, possibly underneath the rest of the stuff about BNet 2.0, and it will probably stay in there.
In fact as far as references go, a forum poll on a site most people have never heard of is probably not adequate, if you can find a news article on a well known gaming website about the community backlash regarding Bnet 2.0 then it's probably a better source than that one post.
|
|
I think you may run the risk of that part of the wiki being deleted by someone who knows the "wikipedia-law". The formatting has to be very specific, and TL may not be a good enough source etc.
SC2 Forum should change its name to Blizzard Criticism.
|
+ Show Spoiler + While Blizzard boasts some of the most loyal fans in the gaming industry, they have recently come under heavy criticism.The main concern revolves around the Battle.net 2.0 platform and a recent interview with Frank Pearce, one of the founders of Blizzard.
One of the biggest requests has been for LAN play[82][83] with over 250,000 fans signing a petition (via petitiononline.com) requesting that Blizzard include LAN support. For a while it was speculated that there would be a semi-LAN mode, in which clients verified with a server. However, in an interview Frank Pearce made it clear that there would be no LAN support in StarCraft 2.[84] Also, in the same interview it was stated that people wishing to play people in areas other than their own would have to buy additional copies of the game
How about this?
Blizzard has recently been heavily criticized for the direction it seemed to be taking with its Battle.net 2.0 platform and the StarCraft series in general. There are several notable flaws within the system, such as the lack of chat rooms, lack of cross-region play, and lack of LAN. There was a petition in 2009 consisting of over 250,000 fans that strongly urged blizzard to include LAN play in StarCraft II. However Frank Pearce, one of the founders of Blizzard, stated that there will be no LAN due to piracy issues. He also said that gamers who wished to play in other regions will have to buy additional copies of the game and it's respective expansions as well, despite the fact that the original intent of the region lock was so that latency would not interfere with gameplay quality.
it would be nice if someone incorporated at least some of my writing into the wikipedia article. I can't do it myself D: its confuuusing
|
this. The concept behind wikipedia is you write an article based off work that has been reviewed by someone, is notable (having coverage in reliable sources), and in a neutral point of view. Yours is neither, and is using wikipedia as a soapbox. Your edits will be removed as they are in violation of wikipedia's publishing rules.
Wikipedia is not your blog. Criticism sections are reserved for criticism done by the media generally. If someone wrote a post online about a bunch of people whinging about sc2's problems that's one thing. A video game review is completely different. Not even sure how you can criticize an unlaunched product anyways.
|
I would be surprised if this remains. Wikipedia's notability requirements fetishize mainstream media and peer reviewed stuff. Which is of course a reasonable way to go but makes it awfully hard for internet oriented info to get in there (see for example the webcomics purge, where any webcomic with no references in mainstream media had its article deleted). You need some print mag to pick this up. Or maybe just a much larger website (or two)
*EDIT* also see the post above mine, ie on the bottom of the previous page
|
This isn't out of place, good idea. Just like there's a "criticism" section on UN page. Keep working on it, poll results would be a good idea if it was massive enough.
|
The themes from General which currently show up on the Beta page make me want to vomit.
|
it is gone. locked for 3 days and will probably not return. the "authorities" on wikipedia feel like a bad joke sometimes (in general, not just now).
|
On May 30 2010 17:19 MamiyaOtaru wrote: I would be surprised if this remains. Wikipedia's notability requirements fetishize mainstream media and peer reviewed stuff. lol, they FETISHIZE LEGITIMACY.
|
I like the idea and effort put into this, but the information is not very credible, even by wikipedia standards. All the references made to community opinion were from teamliquid forum pages and the references to Blizzard statements weren't referenced in the right style. TL is only a small part of the gaming community and it is hardly an impartial source of information about Starcraft 2. I suppose that wikipedia would rather references to more established sources like eurogamer or ign, where a more impartial (and probably in our eyes, naive) opinion is likely.
|
why dont you add the major issues hardcore fans agree upon on the Liquipedia so that it can become a form of organized feedback from the veterans of the game?
|
Is it just me, or it's gone?
|
|
This was the admin's comments on the section:
This keeps getting added and subtracted, so after watching this for the last few hours I've fully protected the article for three days so we can:
* Leave the status quo in the article as is, and * Discuss the matter of a criticism section so we can get some consensus for its inclusion or exclusion.
I have no strong feelings on the matter, but I do want to see some decision on the matter by the time the protection ends. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to write any copy as I'm supposed to be revising for finals, but I suggest anyone so minded engages with Tom in a discussion about a criticism section, with a view to citing multiple sources in support.
|
On May 30 2010 21:39 EntSC wrote:
I don't have time to write any copy as I'm supposed to be revising for finals, but I suggest anyone so minded engages with Tom in a discussion about a criticism section, with a view to citing multiple sources in support.
Im interested to see if anyone here will argue for its inclusion. Ive never edited wiki. I think the big things for a wikipedia page to include this is
proper formating neutral tone factual information multiple sources (not jsut TL, Bnet has huge threads)
|
The Frank Pearce interview and the LAN replaced by Bnet 2.0 stuff should be enough.
|
On May 30 2010 20:22 tyCe wrote: I like the idea and effort put into this, but the information is not very credible, even by wikipedia standards. All the references made to community opinion were from teamliquid forum pages and the references to Blizzard statements weren't referenced in the right style. TL is only a small part of the gaming community and it is hardly an impartial source of information about Starcraft 2. I suppose that wikipedia would rather references to more established sources like eurogamer or ign, where a more impartial (and probably in our eyes, naive) opinion is likely. wrong. incgamers is not part of tl yet.
|
|
Not sure if this has been posted here yet, but here is another post someone made about having it removed:
Given that this seems to have been prompted by an external group of people from a forum, I'd advise individuals concerned read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure and Criticism sections; "criticism and controversy" sections can have a negative impact on neutral presentation; usually with video game articles, unless there's major unconventional issues that are covered by the core video game (IGN, GameSpot, PC Gamer, etc) or mainstream media, such points should be worked into the "development" or "reception" sections of an article, not given a special preference section (Left 4 Dead 2#Controversy would be a good example of a valid controversy section done properly). However, points also need to be properly cited to reliable sources, see Verifiability and No original research for this—forums, fansites and other sites lacking a wider reputation outside their fanbases aren't appropriate. Incgamers, whilst the strongest source of the ones used, is borderline: it needs to be reinforced by references from better sources. -- Sabre (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to take the time to include all the links. They'd be easy to find anyway.
|
I was a very active editor for Wikipedia years ago and back then it was against their policy to use online forums or blogs as sources for statements, don't know if that is still the policy now but it probably is. The reason they didn't allow forums or blogs as sources is because anyone can post them, Wikipedia preferred knowing exactly who gave the statement. And signing your name on a forum or blog doesn't work either because anyone can use anyone's name in a forum or blog.
|
|
To be frank I don't think this warrants inclusion with what we have now. The wiki editors are right.
|
On May 30 2010 19:51 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 17:19 MamiyaOtaru wrote: I would be surprised if this remains. Wikipedia's notability requirements fetishize mainstream media and peer reviewed stuff. lol, they FETISHIZE LEGITIMACY. Yep, that's what I said. And as per predictions it didn't remain.
|
On May 31 2010 05:56 MamiyaOtaru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2010 19:51 kajeus wrote:On May 30 2010 17:19 MamiyaOtaru wrote: I would be surprised if this remains. Wikipedia's notability requirements fetishize mainstream media and peer reviewed stuff. lol, they FETISHIZE LEGITIMACY. Yep, that's what I said. And as per predictions it didn't remain. Not necessarily - sometimes mainstream media gets things wrong, and/or don't cover some viewpoints that actually are a big impact on the perspectives towards an issue. It's not there right now but they are discussing whether it should be included, so it has a chance to remain. I think it will be removed but it does have a decent chance of staying, especially if later more sources appear.
|
I'm glad that everyone on this thread (and on Wikipedia) have been acting rationally and calmly on this. Good to see that it's not all hysteria!
The best bet for getting this to stick would be contacting any game journalists you know to write an article on it.
|
Lol anyone else think a criticism page on a product that hasn't even been released is stupid.
It's still beta and you're not judging the whole product you can criticize the beta but not the product, at least not until it's released
Also as far as i see criticisms are usually left to reputable media sources like gamespot etc for games etc, not just fan rage.
|
On the other hand which one of the "reputable" magazines ever rated games correctly/did decent reviews? Most of the time magazines opinion and rating is trash, they don't know better.
|
I was an editor at Wikipedia some years ago and if the policies are still the same then the Youtube video and the "Escapist Activision History Thread" would not be considered as verifiable sources seeing as how the Youtube video would probably be considered blog material, and the Escapist thread is from a forum, Wikipedia didn't consider blogs and forums as verifiable sources. However the Gamerant article appears to be able to meet the criteria.
|
|
|
|