Wikipedia Entry on Paranoia?

Clangador

Mongoose
What do you think of the Wikipedia entry on Paranoia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_%28role-playing_game%29
 

xombie

Mongoose
I've read a lot of it, eh, it's ok, at least it doesn't leak entirely too much treasoness material. I do have one player who surfs the net during downtime at work and usually it involves whatever games we are running or preparing to run.
 

Clangador

Mongoose
I found another page on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vogon/Paranoia_rewrite

I think I like it better than the "official" entry.
 

Clangador

Mongoose
xombie said:
I've read a lot of it, eh, it's ok, at least it doesn't leak entirely too much treasoness material. I do have one player who surfs the net during downtime at work and usually it involves whatever games we are running or preparing to run.

That sounds like me when I'm playing in a game. :twisted:
 

Mark Dunder

Mongoose
Hey, I think those pages are hackable? We could delete the treasonous material (did I just say that out loud?).

Or not.
 

xombie

Mongoose
It's not that it's "hackable" it's that it's publicly developed. We could change anything we wanted on there but the contributors tend to get awful whiny when you do that.

There's an entry on my Urban Dead Zombie Group on the Wiki, and originally it was created by a rival and written to make us look bad. Needless to say, we changed it and well that's when they started whining about Wiki rules and changing entries. They however stopped whining when they found out we were the group and so had complete control over how we were represented.

Basically I said, we are the subject, and they shut the hell up. lol
 

Clangador

Mongoose
xombie said:
It's not that it's "hackable" it's that it's publicly developed. We could change anything we wanted on there but the contributors tend to get awful whiny when you do that.

There's an entry on my Urban Dead Zombie Group on the Wiki, and originally it was created by a rival and written to make us look bad. Needless to say, we changed it and well that's when they started whining about Wiki rules and changing entries. They however stopped whining when they found out we were the group and so had complete control over how we were represented.

Basically I said, we are the subject, and they shut the hell up. lol

I don't agree that the subject of an article should get to control the content of any articles on them as this would not tend to promote the neutrality of said article(s). But, yes Wikipedia is hackable and has had problems with that in the past. It's a group effort and not the work of any one person or group.
 

xombie

Mongoose
Clangador said:
I don't agree that the subject of an article should get to control the content of any articles on them as this would not tend to promote the neutrality of said article(s). But, yes Wikipedia is hackable and has had problems with that in the past. It's a group effort and not the work of any one person or group.

I don't agree that a "subject" should have control either but in this case it was determined that the article was not impartial and was in fact written to make our group look bad by a rival. In this instance, and since this is a game related article (not fact but fiction) it was deemed that we should in fact have the right to be fairly represented by the information within.

To put it simply, this is a game, and someone we fought felt like whining and flatout lying about our in game behavior.
 

Clangador

Mongoose
xombie said:
I don't agree that a "subject" should have control either but in this case it was determined that the article was not impartial and was in fact written to make our group look bad by a rival. In this instance, and since this is a game related article (not fact but fiction) it was deemed that we should in fact have the right to be fairly represented by the information within.

To put it simply, this is a game, and someone we fought felt like whining and flatout lying about our in game behavior.

Okay, I see. That seems reasonable.
 
Top