Webkinz Insider - Not affiliated with Ganz or Webkinz.

Welcome to WI!


Free Webkinz Codes

Ads  Remove Ads

Become an Insider Insider Subscriber and make these ads go away!
Go Back   Webkinz Insider Forum > WebkinzInsider.Com > Wiki Discussion

Welcome to the Webkinz Insider Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives limits your access to many of our other features. By joining our FREE community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), removal of some (including the "in-text") ads, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features, such as trading, and entering contests! Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Closed
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-11-2015, 01:59 AM   #1
gifted9
Gifted
 
gifted9's Avatar
gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!
gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!

Default WIki guidelines vs. Wikipedia guidelines?

From time to time, I see articles in the WIki that are in first- or second-person, have unsupported claims, or are anglosphere biased. I don't see any WIki guidelines on the matter, but I know that none of that would fly on the original Wikipedia, where their content guidelines are extremely stringent.

I understand that WIki is not Wikipedia and that our scope and rules are not the same (e.g. their "no censorship" rule is definitely not mirrored here), but I'd like to know where we stand. Specifically, I'm curious about how much of their Neutral Point of View policy should be followed here as well, since the other two (Verifiability and No Original Research) don't really apply to this Wiki.
gifted9 is offline Female
Sponsored Links
Old 07-11-2015, 07:31 AM   #2
 
MissGnomie's Avatar
MissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck Norris
MissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck Norris

Default Re: WIki guidelines vs. Wikipedia guidelines?

I've just seen this on my way out the door, so I don't have time to reply right now. But I'll try and pop on this evening and answer your question.
MissGnomie is offline Female
Old 07-11-2015, 12:45 PM   #3
Shablooming
Wiki SysOp
 
monkeecj's Avatar
monkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizen
monkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizenmonkeecj is a crafty citizen

Default Re: WIki guidelines vs. Wikipedia guidelines?

View Post Originally Posted by gifted9
From time to time, I see articles in the WIki that are in first- or second-person, have unsupported claims, or are anglosphere biased. I don't see any WIki guidelines on the matter, but I know that none of that would fly on the original Wikipedia, where their content guidelines are extremely stringent.

I understand that WIki is not Wikipedia and that our scope and rules are not the same (e.g. their "no censorship" rule is definitely not mirrored here), but I'd like to know where we stand. Specifically, I'm curious about how much of their Neutral Point of View policy should be followed here as well, since the other two (Verifiability and No Original Research) don't really apply to this Wiki.
We try to present WIki pages in the most professional style possible, striving towards objectivity. Of the issues you mentioned, first-person perspective is the most common problem and almost always should be avoided and fixed. Second-person perspective is a bit more complicated, and I would argue that there is a place for it in our WIki. Some of our articles are directed towards fellow users in an instructional manner (here is one example: Polarberry Jam). While this certainly could be amended to be more neutral, the article purely is instructional in nature. In more general articles, this style probably should be avoided. Any questions about this can be brought up in the forum.

If someone comes across information that may not be true, then that should be mentioned in the forum for discussion. However, unlike Wikipedia we do not require citations for our information. When citations are linked to information, they are always welcome. But because the scope of the WIki is limited to Webkinz issues and almost all information is taken directly from WW, Webkinz Newz, or WI itself, these facts usually are inconsequential and easily verifiable. Instead, we rely on our members to fix and discuss any information that may be incorrect.

As far as anglosphere bias, I would need to see an example to know if this is a problem.

We do try to make articles as accurate and well-written as possible. At the same time, we want to encourage participation as much as possible. For this reason, I actually prefer to see a member contribute information in first-person perspective or with incorrect spelling and grammar than to not have that member contribute at all. We always can correct these mistakes later on while benefiting from this new information.
monkeecj is offline Male
Old 07-11-2015, 06:19 PM   #4
 
MissGnomie's Avatar
MissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck Norris
MissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck NorrisMissGnomie is better than Chuck Norris

Default Re: WIki guidelines vs. Wikipedia guidelines?

View Post Originally Posted by monkeecj
We try to present WIki pages in the most professional style possible, striving towards objectivity. Of the issues you mentioned, first-person perspective is the most common problem and almost always should be avoided and fixed. Second-person perspective is a bit more complicated, and I would argue that there is a place for it in our WIki. Some of our articles are directed towards fellow users in an instructional manner (here is one example: Polarberry Jam). While this certainly could be amended to be more neutral, the article purely is instructional in nature. In more general articles, this style probably should be avoided. Any questions about this can be brought up in the forum.

If someone comes across information that may not be true, then that should be mentioned in the forum for discussion. However, unlike Wikipedia we do not require citations for our information. When citations are linked to information, they are always welcome. But because the scope of the WIki is limited to Webkinz issues and almost all information is taken directly from WW, Webkinz Newz, or WI itself, these facts usually are inconsequential and easily verifiable. Instead, we rely on our members to fix and discuss any information that may be incorrect.

As far as anglosphere bias, I would need to see an example to know if this is a problem.

We do try to make articles as accurate and well-written as possible. At the same time, we want to encourage participation as much as possible. For this reason, I actually prefer to see a member contribute information in first-person perspective or with incorrect spelling and grammar than to not have that member contribute at all. We always can correct these mistakes later on while benefiting from this new information.

This is an excellent reply, Thanks MonkeeCJ!

Some additional thoughts:

I would be curious to hear what you identify as anglosphere bias. I think there is, obviously, one because of the location & target marketing that Webkinz produces towards The United States and Canada. But I would be curious what else you have identified.

I think also the beauty of the WIki is that those of us who may be more comfortable in writing articles with limited first-person reflections and biases can easily edit the article to reflect that position. We do want people to participate and add information. Because of this, we don't stress that aspect of our WIKI as much as say, Wikipedia, who is looking for accurate information that reflects knowledge collected by a sophisticated and knowledgable community. But Wikipedia has also evolved from it's original concept. Because it is a living document, right? I mean, before people would NEVER recommend using Wikipedia for any sort of information. And while it is still not an acceptable source for academics, class research essays, etc. It is highly valued for its access to overview and information on current events, history, etc. etc. That took time to achieve!
MissGnomie is offline Female
Old 07-12-2015, 12:37 AM   #5
Truly Gifted :)
Gifted
 
mattyboo1's Avatar
mattyboo1 is epic beyond epicnessmattyboo1 is epic beyond epicnessmattyboo1 is epic beyond epicnessmattyboo1 is epic beyond epicnessmattyboo1 is epic beyond epicness
mattyboo1 is epic beyond epicnessmattyboo1 is epic beyond epicnessmattyboo1 is epic beyond epicnessmattyboo1 is epic beyond epicnessmattyboo1 is epic beyond epicnessmattyboo1 is epic beyond epicness

Default Re: WIki guidelines vs. Wikipedia guidelines?

Wikipedia is a world wide website, so they have to be very strict with their editing policies, we are just our little webkinz community here so I don't think our wiki is quite as strict as Wikipedia, though I must say our WI wiki has helped me on many occasions before, thanks for everyone contributions to the wiki as even today it remains a great source of webkinz information.
mattyboo1 is offline Male
Old 07-19-2015, 09:30 PM   #6
Chimney loves Wacky!
Gifted
 
R3dRulez's Avatar
R3dRulez has disabled reputation

Default Re: WIki guidelines vs. Wikipedia guidelines?

The above replies have provided some very good points. I would also like to add that whenever you (or anyone for that matter) is updating the wiki, using references is acceptable when possible. Events such as Webkinz Votes 2014 involve many Webkinz News articles and subsequently has many links in its references section.
R3dRulez is offline Female
Old 07-24-2015, 11:15 PM   #7
gifted9
Gifted
 
gifted9's Avatar
gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!
gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!gifted9 is a def. WINNER!

Default Re: WIki guidelines vs. Wikipedia guidelines?

(late...) Thanks for the reply, everyone.

Yes, I expected that our WIki would be much more lenient than Wikipedia when it comes to second-person and no citations because of differing scopes (and much fewer people around to catch mistakes).

Anglosphere bias is the least frequent issue for me out of the examples listed and I was the most ambiguous about whether this should be a rule or not. I personally don't think it matters too much, since Webkinz is an English-only site, targeted toward Canadians and Americans, and according to Alexa, 92% of WI's visitors are from USA. There must be next to no non-anglophones who rely on the WIki and have issues with anglophone bias.

I'm surprised that there isn't an official sticky or something concerning stylistic guidelines for editing. Would it be possible to put one together? I understand that it's important to be bold (in Wikipedia's terms lol) but the site isn't what it was five years ago. I don't think a reminder to spell words correctly or not write in first-person would deter most from contributing. In fact, I think it would encourage members to contribute in order to correct those mistakes where they saw them, myself included -- I'd no longer ask myself "do I correct this? do I not?" when coming across poor but not abhorrent writing if there were official guidelines on how the WIki should be written.

Last edited by gifted9; 07-24-2015 at 11:18 PM..
gifted9 is offline Female
Closed

Tags
googles always prevail

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2007-2013 Kopi Enterprises, LLC
WebkinzInsider.Com is not an official site of, sponsored by, nor affiliated with Ganz, Inc, Webkinz, Lil'Kinz, or Kinzville Newz and all character names, logos, and images are trademarks owned by Ganz, Inc.
no new posts