IMPORTANT: Looking for an established wikipedia editor

[Tigranes]

Now then, a few of the mistakes have been repaired.
But I'm asking you again about a few more things to fix, to any of you who's already a registered editor and agrees with the following:



4 - Civilization IV italian, russian and french page are even more ridiculous. Only American Revolution and Road to War are listed, with (in italian only) their description that I wrote. Please restore the rest, fixing the links.
(and btw, in the russian wiki, FFH has its own page! I wonder why of this unfair treatment...)

See Rhye, the name of your thread and this words in bold suggest that you are looking for an established editor -- this is the reason why it''s seems that we don't care. We do, but we are not established enough

On the serious part, let me ask you this. This is a Russian BTS page, the only place when they talk about "Rhye" (I could not find any page about BTS mods, except stand-alone FfH, tell me if I missed it):


http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_IV:_Beyond_the_Sword


Just to check how it all works I created an account and corrected the name of your contribution to BTS: "Возникновение" (Birth, Creation) ---> Возвышение (Rise, no way to play with Rhye's in Russian ).

Please tell what exactly needs to be done. Do I create a new page about the Civ IV mods? Or do I add a new section "Mods" either on BTS page, or on Civ 4 page? Maybe just create a new page about RFC, just like they have there for FfH? Maybe something else?

 

[mdwh]

too bad, that discussion is lost. It got deleted (I assume because it was too long/shameful etc), which incidentally means that Wikipedia isn't as "free" compared to other online pedias as some users here like to advertise.

It's free as in free speech, similar to open source - you are free to distribute it.

This doesn't mean that the Wikimedia servers are offering to freely host whatever info you want to advertise on there. You are free to run your own server that includes the information from Wikipedia, and whatever else you like to add.

This is like whining that Linux isn't free, because the official distribution doesn't accept your patch. It's nonsensical, because that's not what "free" means here.

What other online encyclopedias do you refer to OOI that are free, and will allow any edits?

If we really needed more examples besides the persecution perpetrated against RFC and Rhye.

Persecution?

Regarding this thread - I don't know what articles are being referred to, but I would have thought that that conflict of interest point was obvious, if one is writing about your own mod. There's no hard rule against writing about your own works, but it's generally a good idea to let other people do this. If it's notable, people will do this. I've written software myself, but I don't go writing articles about it in Wikipedia, because of this reason. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest .

As for citation needed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability - you need to provide a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources . I agree with the other poster who said that the Civ 4 manual is a perfectly valid manual, if it contains this information (sources don't have to be online).

 

[Rhye]

mdwh, the point isn't the conflict of interest.
The point is that I added info about RFC as well as other civilization mods, and a moderator deleted only RFC and left the rest, resulting in a censorship of all the scenarios made by me. And providing false information in some pages (claiming that Civ4 shipped with only Desert War and American Independence, for example). He stated that if an enstablished editor verified that the content was legitimate, he would have not opposed any restoration.

As today's, the problem is limited to italian BTS and Civ4 pages, and to french Civ4 page. Spanish and portuguese civ4 page instead had all the scenarios deleted, which was at least less bad.

 

[onedreamer]

the italian BTS page is not a problem anymore, thanks to IdArkano

 

[onedreamer]

This is like whining that Linux isn't free, because the official distribution doesn't accept your patch. It's nonsensical, because that's not what "free" means here.

the only nonsensical things I've read here are you comments and comparisons. You are comparing "free of cost" with "freedom of speech"

What other online encyclopedias do you refer to OOI that are free, and will allow any edits?

none, in fact I am saying that there aren't any, hence your question is nonsensical yet again.

I would have thought that that conflict of interest point was obvious, if one is writing about your own mod.

The only thing that's obvious here is the nonsense you go on writing. You can talk of conflict of interest if you're trying to sell me something and tell me that it's the best thing at the best price I can find because... you said so. there can't be conflict of interest if you have no INTEREST (IE: return of money) in advertising something, and this is clearly specified in the wikipedia conflict of interest page as well.
If you are *describing* your work to me I don't see how I could object you "no I can't believe you cos you made this, hence if you describe it, your words can't be trusted, even if they are evidently true, backed up by verifiable external infos, and whatnot". To make a silly comparison, since you seem to appreciate them, it would be the same as if I just trash the manual for Civilization 4, since it's written by Firaxis, there is a conflict of interest and the info in there can't be reliable.

There's no hard rule against writing about your own works

I think you should have thought twice about these words before posting nonsense.

 

[mdwh]

the only nonsensical things I've read here are you comments and comparisons. You are comparing "free of cost" with "freedom of speech"

Wikipedia is free as in speech. Whatever policies it has on the content that appears on the official Wikipedia distribution doesn't affect it being free. I was disagreeing with your claim "which incidentally means that Wikipedia isn't as "free" compared to other online pedias as some users here like to advertise" - the fact that content got deleted off the main Wikipedia server doesn't stop the content being released under a free licence. You are free to distribute Wikipedia content, even if the material later gets deleted.

I don't see what free as in cost has to do anything, I didn't mention that. If you meant free as in cost, I don't see how Wikipedia deleting content has anything to do with the cost.

none, in fact I am saying that there aren't any, hence your question is nonsensical yet again.

You claimed "Wikipedia isn't as "free" compared to other online pedias" - what are these other online pedias?

The only thing that's obvious here is the nonsense you go on writing. You can talk of conflict of interest if you're trying to sell me something and tell me that it's the best thing at the best price I can find because... you said so. there can't be conflict of interest if you have no INTEREST (IE: return of money) in advertising something, and this is clearly specified in the wikipedia conflict of interest page as well.

I can't see where it says this? Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Examples , "financial" is one example, but there are many others. I'm not saying that the COI claim was necessarily justified, I'm saying that this doesn't mean there is anything wrong about the way Wikipedia operates (even if some other editor has got it wrong, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia itself is flawed, or isn't free, or whatever). And I still think it's generally a good rule not to write about your own work, free or not - I avoid doing so myself for my projects.

If you are *describing* your work to me I don't see how I could object you "no I can't believe you cos you made this, hence if you describe it, your words can't be trusted, even if they are evidently true, backed up by verifiable external infos, and whatnot". To make a silly comparison, since you seem to appreciate them, it would be the same as if I just trash the manual for Civilization 4, since it's written by Firaxis, there is a conflict of interest and the info in there can't be reliable.

I would suggest reading up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources .

In short, it is reasonable that a published book about a published game is reasonably reliable. Me telling you that I did such-and-such, and you have to believe me because I'm telling you what I did, honest - is not so reliable.

Even for a game like Civilization 4 though, I would expect to see 3rd party sources. And there would be a COI if the article was being edited by the authors.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Well, wikipedia certainly isn't as free as Conservapedia. Here's from their opening page: "Conservapedia has had over 93,100,000 page views and over 637,000 page edits. The truth shall set you free."
The fact that we're having this argument is proof that wikipedia is as free as it can be.

Why don't we just agree that in order for an entry on RFC to be free of bias, it should be written by somebody else other than Rhye?

 

[usi]

Wikipedia doesn't have a BtS page in Japanese, nor am I an estanlished editor, so there's nothing I can do for this issue.

One reason why Wikipedia sucks:
They claim that the users are "free." Yes, the users are free, but some users are "freer" than others. For example, the guy who deleted RFC's descriptions had a special freedom to act like a dictator. He was free to delete a lot of descriptions, ignore what Rhye said, and scare Rhye that he might ban Rhye's account if Rhye did not obey him.

Antoher reason why Wikipedia sucks:
Some user prioritize saving their "faces" over actual benefits that users gain. The guy who deleted RFC's descriptions wrote in somewhere that he had a famous website but he did not put the link to his website in Wikipedia. According to him, that's a good thing. Well . . . HOW? How does that do any good to the users? If his website was really good, users reading Wikipedia would benefit. If the website was crappy, let other users delete the link.

Another reason why Wikipedia sucks:
Authoritarianism. The guy ignored the arguments Rhye made and claimed that if an established editor reverted his changes, he would not mind. This implies an idea like this: "I am your senior. Don't ever argue back. You'll be in trouble if you ever agrue back. I will only obey my seniors. I will never argue back against my seniors."

Maybe I can continue more.

Of course, it is not that Wikipedia itself sucks. It is that there are some users who suck. But, sadly, because such users tend to abuse their "freedom," Wikipedia sucks as a whole...

 

[OzzyKP]

No one has any more power than anyone else. Rhye could have just ignored the guy and put everything back up. (of course he'd take it all back down again, and back & forth). I kinda agree with the editor, sure he should have been nicer about it, but no one could really argue that anyone can be considered neutral when writing about themselves.

Now, I don't blame Rhye in the least for putting that stuff up. 100% it needed to be included. It is sad though that of all the many, many fans of the mod no one thought to put it up first and Rhye had to do it himself. That stuff should have been there all along. So in a strict sense Rhye was wrong for writing stuff about himself, but considering this was a topic worthy of inclusion and no one else had done it yet, Rhye did what he had to do. I've done the same myself.

The editor did say that if other people (i.e. all of us) approved of the changes, then they were ok. He wasn't being a dictator at all, he was just the first on the scene. The challenge (and beauty) of wikipedia is that everyone is free but everyone has to obey the rules (like with anything else in life). What is different however is there are no universal authorities to appeal to (or very few). All "citizens" are charged with the duty of enforcing the "law".

Often there are disagreements. It happens quite frequently that editors don't see eye-to-eye. No side in the argument has more power or authority. The only way to resolve it is to bring in outside opinions. Ideally neutral, unbiased opinions to help resolve the dispute. This is a pretty awesome, democratic way of resolving disputes imho.

Y'all just gotta get more familiar with the way things work and see it isn't so bad and actually makes a lot of sense.

Wikipedia.
Rhye.

 

[phoenix7]

No one has any more power than anyone else. Rhye could have just ignored the guy and put everything back up. (of course he'd take it all back down again, and back & forth). I kinda agree with the editor, sure he should have been nicer about it, but no one could really argue that anyone can be considered neutral when writing about themselves.

Thats called the 3-revert rule, and violating it can lead to account suspension, so probably not a good idea.

Of course, Rhye had good intentions, but his actions did violate WP policy. The other guy was voted a sysop democratically, so no one should say he has the power to do anything he wants, since he could always be "impeached" and lose his powers.

The best resolution is probably just to have a 3rd party write a NPOV section about RFC in the BTS article.

 

[usi]

No one has any more power than anyone else. Rhye could have just ignored the guy and put everything back up.

No, the guy said, "So if you (or some alter ego or anonymous IP) keep adding this material, we'll give you some polite warnings and then if you persist, your domain will be blacklisted, like it or not" (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/rhye.civfanatics.net).

So, he did act like a dictator, and that is one thing especially angered me (and probably others too). If Rhye or some of us (who might look like "some alter ego" of Rhye to him) reverted the guy's changes, Rhye's account might have been blacklisted.

but no one could really argue that anyone can be considered neutral when writing about themselves.

As I said, such a face-saving activity of not putting useful information is not good for users at all. Other people can fix something that is not neutral to be neutral - isn't that a virtue of a "free" encyclopedia? (A good comparison here is that the guy deleted everything.)

The editor did say that if other people (i.e. all of us) approved of the changes, then they were ok.

I have already quoted the guy's argument that he might blacklist Rhye or whoever he suspected. The guy also said, "If an established, high volume editor adds this material, we're fine with that." So, unlike you said, he meant only authority figures - the "Obey your Senior!" idea here - could revert the changes.

Often there are disagreements. It happens quite frequently that editors don't see eye-to-eye. No side in the argument has more power or authority.

Of course. And that's why we should talk - before doing something. We should talk before hitting one another. We should talk before deleting a lot of sentences. And so forth.

Thats called the 3-revert rule, and violating it can lead to account suspension, so probably not a good idea.

In other words, if you disobey your senior three times, you're dead - while they would overlook if changes were made by seniors, or established editors (who, of course, are not chosen democrarically).

 

[Panopticon]

Thats called the 3-revert rule, and violating it can lead to account suspension, so probably not a good idea.

Of course, Rhye had good intentions, but his actions did violate WP policy. The other guy was voted a sysop democratically, so no one should say he has the power to do anything he wants, since he could always be "impeached" and lose his powers.

The best resolution is probably just to have a 3rd party write a NPOV section about RFC in the BTS article.

I agree with some of this, but it shows a somewhat naive view of how Wikipedia works - it's been noted for allowing senior editors to manipulate pages in which they have an interest, like the case of the Lockerbie bombings page, to further their own interests.

Things seem to be resolved now on the English Wiki, so we just need someone to work in translation.

 

[onedreamer]

Wikipedia is free as in speech. Whatever policies it has on the content that appears on the official Wikipedia distribution doesn't affect it being free. I was disagreeing with your claim "which incidentally means that Wikipedia isn't as "free" compared to other online pedias as some users here like to advertise" - the fact that content got deleted off the main Wikipedia server doesn't stop the content being released under a free licence. You are free to distribute Wikipedia content, even if the material later gets deleted.

I don't see what free as in cost has to do anything, I didn't mention that. If you meant free as in cost, I don't see how Wikipedia deleting content has anything to do with the cost.

You mentioned Linux as "free", and you keep mixing the meanings of freedom of speech and free license, they are two different things. I couldn't care less what license is wikipedia distributed with, we are speaking of freedom of speech here, and when I said that wikipedia isn't that free, I *obviously* wasn't referring to the release license, if that needed a clarification

You claimed "Wikipedia isn't as "free" compared to other online pedias" - what are these other online pedias?

read the rest of the thread.

I can't see where it says this?

Ok, since you admit you have problem in understanding, I shall explain in detail. Quote from wikipedia: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." [snip] "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing."

The editor who deleted all entries abuot RFC undoubtly violated several Wiki rules, unlike Rhye whos supposed violation is only yours and that editors opinion. First that guy effectively "outed" the editor (Rhye) since he didn't involve him in any discussion about the issue. Second he deleted useful info damaging the online tool that is Wiki, hence damaging all the community, and clearly going in the opposite direction of Wikipedia's mission. Rhye left several references on those pages that could be checked, and since he doesn't earn money in describing what his mod does, I don't see where the conflict of interest stands, and even if someone does see it, according to the wiki guidelines posted above it should be discussed before deletion.

Even for a game like Civilization 4 though, I would expect to see 3rd party sources. And there would be a COI if the article was being edited by the authors.

There were third party sources such as a review from Yahoo!, you are utterly uninformed on the matter.

 

[onedreamer]

Of course, Rhye had good intentions, but his actions did violate WP policy.

Several people have written this but all of them have yet to explain how. COI definition for Wiki: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

Explain us (in detail) how describing how his mod work falls in the COI Wiki speaks about.

 

[Servical]

Meh, I'm a 3rd party, I author some content on a very rare basis, but I figured I'd give a shot at at least adding RFC among the official Civ4 scenarios as that's what it has become when Firaxis decided to include it with the retail version of the game. I understand their issues with potential conflicts of interest, but this is nonsense, as far as I know, Rhye gets zero benefits from all the work he puts into his mods, yet, they act as if mentionning the existence of his mods was some sort of commercially-driven publicity, which we all know is not the case. Anyhow, let's see how long it'll last before they delete it.. I only edited the main Civ4 page, in order to avoid drawing attention of over-zealous moderators. And BTW, thanks Rhye for making the mod and keeping it up to date.

Also, feel free to ignore the following question, but I guess I have to ask... Did you get any sort of financial compensation from Firaxis or anyone else for the inclusion of RFC with the retail version, or is it simply a "reward" they've given you for creating the best mod out there?

 

[civ_king]

*snip* Did you get any sort of financial compensation from Firaxis or anyone else for the inclusion of RFC with the retail version, or is it simply a "reward" they've given you for creating the best mod out there?

well, FfH got included (of sorts) and they got taught all about BTS so they have a relatively intimate knowledge of the coding, I think they also got Sid's autograph, but I think that was it...