FACTPILE IS BACK!!!
CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF
Take a Tour of the Admin's Mancave

use of wiki's in debates.

Know what's what in the worlds of the pile ranging from the Mainland, the Topia, and everything in between.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Re: use of wiki's in debates.

Postby Jwlynas » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:10 am

Would it not be worth trying to push forward a respect threaded match then, as a sort of preview of what could be?

Dr Doom Versus Dr Strange, both at full power for instance.
Image
User avatar
Jwlynas
Zombie Eater
 
Posts: 4133
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:31 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: use of wiki's in debates.

Postby Matapiojo » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:13 am

That's not a bad one, J. I'll see if I can make the time to create it sometime this week.
AquilaChrysaetos wrote:Don't make mata mad. Or he'll do this:\
Image
User avatar
Matapiojo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:35 pm
Location: Uberville

Re: use of wiki's in debates.

Postby EnigmaJ » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:27 pm

Quoting a Wiki as evidence is no different from quoting some debator's post from another debating site as evidence... and I mean someone who didn't post the source directly. A Wiki is similar to an individual in the sense that its "claiming something happened", while sometimes referencing the "page number". The problem is that every debator is different. It may help push your claim---but some people will merely accept the "page number", while there are those who'll accept nothing less than a "direct quote". It depends on how seriously the debator is about coming to a final, objective conclusion to the debate, and the Wiki is no exception.
EnigmaJ
Check My Brain
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: use of wiki's in debates.

Postby Jwlynas » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:00 am

Lets be honest it also depends on how pedantic or eager to win at all costs the opposite debator is. Some will asks for quotes for absolutely everything and ignore your claims if you can't find references. Wiki, to them, is akin to admitting defeat. Sometimes they'll even demand you do your own calcs for each and every feat. before substituting their own, sometimes rather low estimates.

The reliability of Wiki's is always in question, but the level of doubt varies too much for us to make a single solid claim.
Image
User avatar
Jwlynas
Zombie Eater
 
Posts: 4133
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:31 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: use of wiki's in debates.

Postby orber » Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:11 am

Jwlynas wrote:Lets be honest it also depends on how pedantic or eager to win at all costs the opposite debator is. Some will asks for quotes for absolutely everything and ignore your claims if you can't find references. Wiki, to them, is akin to admitting defeat. Sometimes they'll even demand you do your own calcs for each and every feat. before substituting their own, sometimes rather low estimates.

The reliability of Wiki's is always in question, but the level of doubt varies too much for us to make a single solid claim.


The above is basicly a shorter version of my point.The use of wiki's and how wiki's are threated is too loose in my opinion.

A person at this moment could come too FP and whine about how his wiki links are completely valid too prove his point.Sure the FP police can come in but since there are noo guidelines the stuff the FP police says about the subject is also purely opinion and the wikifanatic can keep going as nobody can grab his face and push it in some nice basic guidelines too make him silent.

At this moment the use and the reliability of wiki use is completely opinion based and stuff like that has the power too halt and derail a debate as not everybody has a FPtopia account too discuss such issues.

However if Mata himself says that such situations will be under control when they happen then I trust Mata's word.
orber
Out of Exile
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:22 am

Re: use of wiki's in debates.

Postby CIDE » Mon May 02, 2011 8:36 pm

On further evidence to how interpretations can get incredibly skewed I simply point you all towards Mike. Really, just look at any debate he's been in with his interpretation of canon for things fighting against his precious Rahl.

Now imagine the chances of someone like Mike writing the wiki pages...?
Floor slippery when wet.
User avatar
CIDE
FactPiler
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:29 am

Re: use of wiki's in debates.

Postby Matapiojo » Tue May 03, 2011 7:30 am

Wikis can (and are) incredibly biased.

If an individual actually takes time to document a good wiki, it means he is a fan of the subject, and as such, will do it as much justice as he/she possibly can without outright posting incorrect information.

I could give the Ghost Rider pages an incredible spin that no one could dispute in terms of correctness, but it would indeed put him well above the "commonly accepted/established" power level given to him by the industry/community (which is a crappy street-level despite all available evidence).
AquilaChrysaetos wrote:Don't make mata mad. Or he'll do this:\
Image
User avatar
Matapiojo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:35 pm
Location: Uberville

Re: use of wiki's in debates.

Postby tmwta » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:46 pm

Wikis are a good proof of concept. Generally all the information in them is founded somewhere in the canon. But context is important, and sometimes wikis have a tendency to take things out of it. If you claim something exists, and someone doesn't believe it, I think a decent wiki page is ample evidence for its existence. But wikis should not be used for raw feats. Canon videos, quotes, scans, and pictures supersede wikis in credibility by a wide margin.
"The only sure defense against bad ideas are better ideas"
-Alfred Whitney Griswold
User avatar
tmwta
What Once Was Lost
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:09 pm
Location: Wyoming

Re: use of wiki's in debates.

Postby Cpt Olimar » Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:23 am

On the subject of context, there is the tendency for people to string a series of technically true statements together without regard of the intent of the creators to come to a conclusion that in of itself is not really supported anywhere.

For example:

Sonic has lightspeed running potential.

Robotnik has outrun sonic on multiple occassions

Robotnik has lightspeed running potential.


The fact that the conclusion is absurd should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but that doesn't prevent certain people from pursuing such awful arguments. Nowhere to my knowledge in sonic is there a scene where robotnik is just running at speed directly referenced in that scene to be lightspeed. In this case, I would highlight that at the time of creation of the scenarios where robotnik outran sonic, sonic was incapable of running at lightspeed, therefore to apply that newer ability back is inventing creator intent that does not actually exist, i.e. the creators of sonic 2 did not intent that robotnik was FTL when they made it. And creator intent should override any outlier logical conclusions.... because word of god. But this is where sensibility becomes more important than rationality, which is something a lot of people here tend to struggle with. /shrug

Now of course if there is an agreement that a composite system is being used, then I suppose such sillyness can be extrapolated but in general I find such reasoning to be exclusive to fans and something the actual creators would never actually agree to.
Sanctity Falls primary character - Felix
/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=70&start=0
"Without books, I might perhaps have been tougher; but an educated mind is neither insensitive nor callous"
-Cicero
User avatar
Cpt Olimar
Utopia Overlord
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:18 pm
Location: Hocatate

Previous

Return to News, Rules, & Updates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest