[game_preservation] Wikipedia thoughts?

[Andrew Armstrong]

Jim Leonard wrote:

>> It's difficult to, however, draw the line I guess between Database 

>> and more general sites. :D Thanks for explaining that. If you do 

>> solicit possible changes to the site's content fields, I'd be happy 

>> to help with some of it, but no worries if it's "okay as it is".

>

> Any page can have information submitted to correct what is there; 

> there is a "contribute" entry under User Actions on the left-side column.

Yeah, I've done one or two minor contributions. I don't have much 
information I feel valid in contributing, and I am not going to start 
putting it in "reviews" (which I can't write).

I meant more if there was going to be more in depth (and yes, objective) 
text fields added, it'd be interesting to see. I mean, sure, reviews, 
great, but hardly researched objective or, usually, that informative. 
Factual content about what happened on release, the marketing of the 
game, patches, after release support, how the game plays and any 
surrounding culture (although that can stray into opinion of sorts), as 
well as any news items for it (including controversy, professional 
criticism, reports of how well it sold or whatever).

For example; the Fallout 2 review - there is no mention of the word 
"bug" - something which plagued the original release (as it is 
documented elsewhere, foretold by saying it was, basically, very 
obviously rushed to completion), and even after the patches many 
problems persisted (which fan patches helped with). Maybe another review 
would mention this, it'd mean searching them all. :)

Anyway, no real matter, it's a noble aim just to get the information 
there already for all the entered titles, hehe :) I just wanted to 
further explain basically why reviews can't really cope with it all, 
although yes, the reviews are fine for outside the mandate of objectiveness.

Thanks for your thoughts on it all anyway!

Andrew