Controversial wikis

BrokenEagle98 said:

Everything in the readily visible portion of those character wikis is related to tagging and/or translations though. I've seen many if not most of those appear in some form or fashion alongside the characters, and they have been very useful to me at least. It's true however that the character bios are not necessarily immediately applicable to anything, however those were added in purely because not everyone can read Japanese, but they are placed in a hidden section so as to not clutter up the rest of the wiki.

It's however not surprising to to me that one of those who made one of those edits is the one who is not only complaining, but is attacking the work I do on this site personally. To be honest I'm pretty enraged at that right now, especially since this topic was made in good faith, so I'm going to leave it at that.

Sorry, but I can't accept that leading by calling the edits 'retarded' is 'good faith'. It's mean.

I just wanted to point out hypocritical it was for you to want to hold an arbitrary selection of wiki pages to be stripped of descriptive information while also filling your own wiki pages with descriptive information. I don't have a problem with your work or your wiki page, I had a problem that you thought other pages didn't deserve the same. And removing the information because the subject might be controversial is a dangerous and vague stance to take.

DreamFromTheLayer said:

Sorry, but I can't accept that leading by calling the edits 'retarded' is 'good faith'. It's mean.

Apparently you have never heard that lingo before. It refers to the endless back-and-forth edits common on wikis which accomplish nothing and cause much aggravation. I won't apologize for saying that as IMHO they are stupid.

DreamFromTheLayer said:

I just wanted to point out hypocritical it was for you...

The edits on that wiki were of little use to tagging or translating. Period. Full-stop. I must stress again, we are not Wikipedia, we are an image collecting site.

Additionally, I did not unilaterally make changes to a controversial topic wiki. I brought that concern to the forum as should have been done in the beginning. The wikis are not owned by any one person or group of people, but as a collective whole.

Sorry I got distracted, but I also wanted to mention that the wiki could use a link to this topic and perhaps a brief message so that other Builder+ users don't accidentally make further edits without discussing them here or elsewhere on the forum first. Thanks.

I think it would be to fair to note on the wiki that it is controversial, given the shitstorms it has called here no less than 5 times.

NWF_Renim said:

Personally I think the description is too light, and that wikis of groups or organizations should at least include one sentence describing what their group or organization stands for or does. While you might want to toss all that information to wikipedia, I find that being able to at a glance get a quick idea of what the group or organization does to be valuable for wikis. If I want to know more, then I might go to wikipedia.

Here, take a look at the first sentences of groups and organizations from wikipedia:

All of them right at the start try and give a brief description of the group or organization so that you have a very quick understanding of what they do or what they stand for. That's frankly how I think our wikis should be.

If we applied this type of description to some of other wikis this is how they would read:

Having a basic understanding of what they do or what they stand for provides context for their depiction and context for what you're seeing in the tagged images. Losing that context makes the wiki pretty useless.

+1