Jump to content

Photo

Wikipedia has a subsection on this fight.


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#1
Superninfreak

Superninfreak
  • Members
  • 128 posts
 http://en.wikipedia....ing_Controversy

This is a good sign, it shows we're getting more attention.

It also puts more pressure on Bioware to respond if even ME3's wikipedia article mentions how upset people are about the ending.

#2
Aligalipe

Aligalipe
  • Members
  • 530 posts
Correct me if I'm wrong but anyone can write on wikipedia

#3
deathscythe517

deathscythe517
  • Members
  • 539 posts
True to the above but most articles have a lock period of like a month or so to avoid flame and troll edits.

#4
PraetorianGuard

PraetorianGuard
  • Members
  • 58 posts

Aligalipe wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong but anyone can write on wikipedia


It's not like a forum. Wiki is constantly under heavy moderation.

#5
Superninfreak

Superninfreak
  • Members
  • 128 posts

Aligalipe wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong but anyone can write on wikipedia


Yes, but bad/unimportant content tends to be edited out, especially on an article of something like a AAA game.

The fact that there are citations also means it's less likely to be deleted.

#6
Korhiann

Korhiann
  • Members
  • 312 posts

Aligalipe wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong but anyone can write on wikipedia


Basicly, yes. However I don't see the relevance of that in this particular case, unless you mean that this isn't a sign of "official" support.

#7
Adamantium93

Adamantium93
  • Members
  • 1,171 posts
We're gaining ground. Don't give up!

#8
hismastersvoice

hismastersvoice
  • Members
  • 275 posts
Sure. It's still there for everyone to read, which is what counts...

#9
Gowienczyk

Gowienczyk
  • Members
  • 172 posts

Superninfreak wrote...

Aligalipe wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong but anyone can write on wikipedia


Yes, but bad/unimportant content tends to be edited out, especially on an article of something like a AAA game.

The fact that there are citations also means it's less likely to be deleted.


People tend to forget this.

#10
sergeym1990

sergeym1990
  • Members
  • 158 posts
Personally i think it is good sign. More exposure of the problem = more chance of BioWare responding.

#11
Adamantium93

Adamantium93
  • Members
  • 1,171 posts
I think it got deleted :(

#12
HKR148

HKR148
  • Members
  • 734 posts

PraetorianGuard wrote...

Aligalipe wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong but anyone can write on wikipedia


It's not like a forum. Wiki is constantly under heavy moderation.


If the section has been made over more than a month, perhaps the part deserves some recognition. But it's only been few days since significant number of players managed the see the end. I would rather believe that the press release would put more pressure than the wikipedia for that reason.

#13
Harbinger of Hope

Harbinger of Hope
  • Members
  • 790 posts
I can't find it on the ME3 page. Maybe BioWare quickly got it deleted.

#14
JohnBes

JohnBes
  • Members
  • 100 posts
Hate to say it, but apparantly Ending_Controversy section has been deleted.

#15
Aligalipe

Aligalipe
  • Members
  • 530 posts

Korhiann wrote...

Aligalipe wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong but anyone can write on wikipedia


Basicly, yes. However I don't see the relevance of that in this particular case, unless you mean that this isn't a sign of "official" support.


I meant that it isn't a sign of official support. But its good that our cries our being spread by verious sources.

Adamantium93 wrote...

We're gaining ground. Don't give up!

 

We need more EMS!

JohnBes wrote...

Hate to say it, but apparantly Ending_Controversy section has been deleted.

 

2 minutes ago it was there, now I checked again and it was gone.

Edited by Aligalipe, 11 March 2012 - 12:47 PM.


#16
sergeym1990

sergeym1990
  • Members
  • 158 posts
It it already restored.

#17
MckRout

MckRout
  • Members
  • 14 posts
Aye, it's gone

#18
hismastersvoice

hismastersvoice
  • Members
  • 275 posts
And it seems to have been deleted. That was fast.

#19
fish of doom

fish of doom
  • Members
  • 580 posts
it's still there.

#20
JohnBes

JohnBes
  • Members
  • 100 posts
Maybe, due to "lack of Notability"? O_o

#21
Aligalipe

Aligalipe
  • Members
  • 530 posts

fish of doom wrote...

it's still there.


Check again.

#22
Adamantium93

Adamantium93
  • Members
  • 1,171 posts
I think there are some people (i wouldn't imagine who) that keep bringing it back everytime he takes it down.

#23
JohnBes

JohnBes
  • Members
  • 100 posts
Yea, check this out: http://en.wikipedia....roversy_Section

#24
sergeym1990

sergeym1990
  • Members
  • 158 posts
It has been deleted again:

(cur | prev) 12:45, 11 March 2012‎ 99.248.44.197 (talk)‎ . . (64,597 bytes) (-1,728)‎ . . (→‎Ending Controversy) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)
(cur | prev) 12:44, 11 March 2012‎ 24.2.161.20 (talk)‎ . . (66,325 bytes) (+1,728)‎ . . (There is no reason why this shouldn't be included in the article. It is not fictional, it has citations, it represents something happening right now.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:40, 11 March 2012‎ 99.248.44.197 (talk)‎ . . (64,597 bytes) (-1,728)‎ . . (→‎Ending Controversy) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)

#25
Superninfreak

Superninfreak
  • Members
  • 128 posts
It's going through an edit war right now.

Though since there are citations I'm not sure why it shouldn't be there.