Post #2033681

2026-02-03 22:42 UTC

Yes. >Yet behind the celebrations, a troubling pattern has developed: The volunteer community that built this encyclopedia has lately rejected a key innovation designed to serve readers. But not that one, because rejecting AI 1) is not a generational rejection and 2) it is correct to reject it. What I think is or will be the generational problem: the community that maintains it and decides what is being accepted or rejected is an "in group" that it is impossible to break into with conflicting ideas. For example, I do think the gaming, game mechanics and game development related pages can be vastly improved. But I don't think the people responsible for those pages are interested in the changes I would suggest. All the wikis for different games could just be on wikipedia. But they're not, probably because they were rejected, because it's "not relevant". Well, some people decided they were relevant after all and they made their own wikis for those. The outcome is tribalism based fragmentation, because of differences in opinion of who values what and what should be preserved and what shouldn't.

Replies (2)

@themoken@startrek.website 2026-02-03 23:43

I'm with you on rejecting AI being sane, but the idea that gaming wikis should be integrated into wikipedia is kinda nuts. If I search "Iron" on wikipedia I'm looking for facts, not a thousand item long disambiguation cluttered with every game that has iron as a resource. Conversely, on a game wiki my search for "Iron" has an entirely different context and I'm looking for different info. Not to mention game wikis have way lower editorial standards, their own tone (e.g. making jokes), versioning concerns, their own new user friendly homepages etc. Wikipedia could tuck this all into a separate namespace, sure, but that's effectively a separate wiki anyway and then it raises questions like "why is wikipedia hosting a mechanical guide for this porn game?" or "How long do we need to host the content for this game that peaked in 2012 and is now abandonware?" that are conveniently sidestepped by those communities supporting themselves.

Open ##2033733
@Fedizen@lemmy.world 2026-02-04 02:44

"designed to serve readers" [citation needed] This was not, in fact designed to serve readers. No possible meaning of that is in anyway correct. It is "non-designed to serve non-readers"

Open ##2033734