DeletedUser14280
No need to be nasty.
It's true that any wikipedia article can be edited, and abused, but there are many more people who will revert the damage.
If in doubt about validity, check the history of the edits, and the references.
It's true that any wikipedia article can be edited, and abused, but there are many more people who will revert the damage.
If in doubt about validity, check the history of the edits, and the references.
DeletedUser
Agreed, HBO might pull it off.
As for a reliable source on what is in the making, I recommend IMDB.
DeletedUser
Anyone who has dealt with Wikipedia a lot knows that vandalism, including sneaky vandalism, is generally dealt with very quickly. I've had a couple times where I've found sneaky vandalism, once in an obscure article and once with one that was less obscure, where I came across sneaky vandalism and was going to revert it immediately but someone beat me to it before I could actually edit it.
Wikipedia
is
a
reliable
source.
I'm sick of hearing otherwise. Most criticisms of Wikipedia have a much less factual basis than would be allowed for a source in a Wikipedia article: second and third hand information and assumptions that Wikipedia is unreliable.
No, you can't use it as a source for a scholarly paper, but the same goes for any encyclopedia. I'll take Wikipedia over a 12 year old set of Encyclopedia Britannica any day.
DeletedUser
When it comes to things such as movies in the works, yes, anyone can edit those. They posted almost next to proof. For example, the Pacman movie is actually some obscure production that took place in 2004 in Japan or something, yet has been inactive since then. I would hardly call that a worthy reference as far as video game to movie adaptations goes.
I'm not denouncing Wikipedia as a whole, but when it comes to things like media, I wouldn't get too terribly excited about it.
I'm not denouncing Wikipedia as a whole, but when it comes to things like media, I wouldn't get too terribly excited about it.
DeletedUser
Which is why you should always check the article's sources. Most articles about movies will include a link to the IMDB page on the movie, as a source and/or an external link.
DeletedUser8950
Pfft. People rarely falsely edit wikipedia. Trust me.
As Elmyr said, the sources are always there on big things.
I don't expect people will ever get over the "anyone can edit wikipedia" mentallity, which isn't even true. You need an account, and until your a respected member, most edits, even valid, are removed anyway in my experience.
I searched up a few of those and all of the ones I searched ARE as far as I could tell being made into films
Resident evil films are a prime example of why people don't want video games made into movies.
As Elmyr said, the sources are always there on big things.
I don't expect people will ever get over the "anyone can edit wikipedia" mentallity, which isn't even true. You need an account, and until your a respected member, most edits, even valid, are removed anyway in my experience.
I searched up a few of those and all of the ones I searched ARE as far as I could tell being made into films
Resident evil films are a prime example of why people don't want video games made into movies.
DeletedUser
When they do edit Wikipedia falsely, they are usually just trying to screw it up, like cusswords or pointless sentences, like "I like fishpaste" or "My name is Wikined and I like lemons" There is also a history-bar for the page that you can click and it shows you all of the edits made for the page. Some are quite humorous, or completely pointless, like the ones I pointed out.
DeletedUser
Yep, the sneaky vandalism I mentioned earlier (deliberately inserting false, but believable information) is much much rarer than the typical juvenile vandalism that can be fixed with a simple revert.
DeletedUser8950
When I was younger I used to always vandalise wookiepedia on someone elses computer then blame it on then. Fun, immature times
DeletedUser
Anybody know any good movies that were made from video games? All I can think of at the moment is Tomb Raider.
DeletedUser8950
Tomb raider films were [insert unaccepatble language here] if you ask me.
But meh.
DeletedUser
When I was younger I used to always vandalise wookiepedia on someone elses computer then blame it on then. Fun, immature times
So you've actually matured?
DeletedUser8950
I delude myself into thinking so occasionally.
DeletedUser
Yes, I did like the Tomb Raider movies. It was stuff I could watch with my kids and they loved them.
DeletedUser
Right. And most of those "sources" are nonapplicable and shanty at best. Two wrong sources don't make a right one.
DeletedUser
To some extent.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
I wish I could remember the term, but what's really funny are online sources whose information came from Wikipedia in the first place.
DeletedUser
Of course I'm not stating that Wikipedia universally has crappy sources -- as you said, it's definitely better than an outdated encylopedia. My main gripe is the links he posted to wikipedia in regards to films made about video games that just simply aren't true or aren't applicable to this thread whatsoever.
Check the Pacman link and then the wikipedia source to see what I'm getting at.
Check the Pacman link and then the wikipedia source to see what I'm getting at.
DeletedUser
There ya go, mentioning an example of your allegation. Much better than "Wikipedia sucks."
DeletedUser
would you 2 mind makeing a thread about wikipedia so we can go off topic there