Jump to content

Photo

Non-Notable? Say WHAT?


11 replies to this topic

#1 JohnPCAE OFFLINE  

JohnPCAE

    Moonsweeper

  • 411 posts

Posted Wed May 16, 2018 8:58 PM

Some people at work were talking about the Atari VCS, so for kicks I decided to look up my emulator on Wikipedia. I was shocked to find that the page is gone. Apparently one of the mods doesn't think too highly of it. It was only the first to emulate Pitfall II and the first to achieve 60 fps.

 

Grr.

 

https://en.wikipedia...oldid=835296514



#2 Flojomojo OFFLINE  

Flojomojo

    I say boom boom boom

  • 12,078 posts
  • You say bam bam bam

Posted Wed May 16, 2018 9:32 PM

Well put it back then! That's the beauty of Wikipedia.

#3 KaeruYojimbo OFFLINE  

KaeruYojimbo

    Stargunner

  • 1,616 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted Wed May 16, 2018 9:59 PM

Discovering PCAE was what got me back into Atari and classic gaming in general in the 90's.

 

So it's pretty notable to me.



#4 Keatah OFFLINE  

Keatah

    Missile Commander

  • 20,314 posts

Posted Wed May 16, 2018 10:04 PM

PCAE! I loved it back then!

#5 The Usotsuki OFFLINE  

The Usotsuki

    Stargunner

  • 1,937 posts
  • Also called "Licca"

Posted Thu May 17, 2018 9:53 PM

First Atari emu I ever used.



#6 stephena OFFLINE  

stephena

    River Patroller

  • 3,115 posts
  • Stella maintainer
  • Location:Newfoundland, Canada

Posted Fri May 18, 2018 3:28 PM

I find that Wikipedia wants an article to have references from somewhere else.  For example, Stella was mentioned in several books, and as such those are listed as references and basically keep the page relevant (in their eyes, at least).

 

Perhaps see if PCAE was mentioned in any books, magazines, etc over the years, and use that to make sure the page remains there.  And as others have said, it's easy to bring it back.  But having references will keep it from being deleted in the future.



#7 SpiceWare OFFLINE  

SpiceWare

    Draconian

  • 12,125 posts
  • Medieval Mayhem
  • Location:Planet Houston

Posted Fri May 18, 2018 3:43 PM

Know how that goes.  The Bosconian entry used to reference Draconian, but it was removed last month due to:

 

Removed 2017 games as they're minor hobbyist projects and the links are just to forums without solid information.

 

And yet Medieval Mayhem has an entry all to itself.



#8 KaeruYojimbo OFFLINE  

KaeruYojimbo

    Stargunner

  • 1,616 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted Fri May 18, 2018 3:54 PM

Know how that goes.  The Bosconian entry used to reference Draconian, but it was removed last month due to:
 

Removed 2017 games as they're minor hobbyist projects and the links are just to forums without solid information.

 

And yet Medieval Mayhem has an entry all to itself.

Maybe they only specifically removed games from 2017. Like, 2017 was a really bad year for someone and he's trying to wipe it from existence. Galactopus is still mentioned in the Cephalopods in Popular Culture entry (and the link is to the AtariAge store listing, which kind of makes it an ad...)

 

Or it could just be that it's Wikipedia and there are no rules...


Edited by KaeruYojimbo, Fri May 18, 2018 4:00 PM.


#9 Flojomojo OFFLINE  

Flojomojo

    I say boom boom boom

  • 12,078 posts
  • You say bam bam bam

Posted Fri May 18, 2018 4:06 PM

Arbitraryandcapriciouspedia. 



#10 stephena OFFLINE  

stephena

    River Patroller

  • 3,115 posts
  • Stella maintainer
  • Location:Newfoundland, Canada

Posted Fri May 18, 2018 4:08 PM

Or it could just be that it's Wikipedia and there are no rules...

 

Sometimes it is very subjective.  It often depends on the individual editor, and whatever biases they have.  And deity forbid you get into an 'edit war' with some of the hardcore editors over hot-button topics like politics, etc.  Then they constantly edit/delete/re-edit, and basically make Wikipedia their personal blog/playground.

IOW, Wikipedia can oftentimes be complete crap.



#11 Flojomojo OFFLINE  

Flojomojo

    I say boom boom boom

  • 12,078 posts
  • You say bam bam bam

Posted Fri May 18, 2018 4:47 PM

Just like any human endeavor, you know?

 

Factions push for their interests, and those in power push aside those that don't. There's no objective "truth," just best efforts to live up to guiding principles. I have seen what you're talking about, and it's frustrating, but Wikipedia is ultimately more useful than many other online tools I use.

 

Just be glad you're not a Flat Earther or something, that would be *really* frustrating!



#12 stephena OFFLINE  

stephena

    River Patroller

  • 3,115 posts
  • Stella maintainer
  • Location:Newfoundland, Canada

Posted Fri May 18, 2018 5:19 PM

IMO, it's useful for what it is, as long as you understand its limitations (which is also true for any human endeavour too, I suppose).  In my professional environment (higher education), students use it quite a bit, but we always tell them that it can't be the definitive source for information.  What makes it so good for some is also its greatest weakness; it can be edited by anybody.

 

But I agree that it's one of the most useful online resources available.  As long as you realize its shortcomings (which the OP is now experiencing).






0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users