FANDOM


  • While I do honestly respect you, I can still say without hesitation that people in charge are suseptible to wrongdoings regardless, and I have seen it before. And I was seeing it again with how this wiki was handled.

    "There's certain other conventions that wikis often use, but this is the bare-bones defintion of what a wiki is. So, a Wiki absolutely CAN be more than just pure factual documentation, it's just that this kind of a site structure is generally the one used for making digital encyclopedias. So it's not "objective fact" that wikis are only for acting as encyclopedias and not as creative tools."

    See, this is what I mean. You are not representing what wikis are meant to operate, and I hate it when some people views a valid definition as bare-boned, its quite frankly dishonest.

    Even if it is, its actually the reality of how they actually work, and as for what you said, its a painfully weak criticism for the definition itself. If the said valid definition I have explained about was used instead, I swear to you that the wiki will operate much better than previously expected.

    The thing is, not only are users believing that wikis are for creative ideas etc, and believing that they are creating powers as if they owned them, which is untrue in its own right, the powers have to be debuted in both real-life and in fiction beforehand, otherwise they won't deserve a place on the wiki. Even if you are to give me evidence to prove me wrong otherwise in regards to how wikis operate in your own view, I extremely doubt you would find it.

    "Honestly, I find the tone of this post to be obnoxiously prescriptive. This post makes all kinds of assertions about what wikis were made for and how wikis should be used. I don't think the OP has any business saying what people should be doing with wikis. Wikis can be used lots of ways, it's just that here at SP Wiki we have a specific way of doing things. We still allow for creative content alongside our more documentarian style main namespace. It's just that we provide clear distinctions for where the creative content should go so that it doesn't interfere with the wiki's main goal - cataloging superpowers in fiction."

    I wasn't trying to make the post obnoxiously prescriptive. You may find it a harsh reality, but as wiki runnners, we have to live up to the true standard on how wikis are meant to work, and if we won't, then the wikis won't even be called wikis anymore. I also feel like this is like a play area where children make up their own rules that don't make a good fit to make everything else work. This is exactly how I feel about all this. What you are basically saying is not going to fit the wiki in terms of functionality, and its just going to make it less of a wiki than it should be. It all never makes sense in a bad way.

      Loading editor
    • Wikis can be for creative ideas. People make wikis for creative purposes all the time - a wiki is just a way of formatting information that includes allowing for collaborative editing. Generally speaking wikis are often for documenting information, but they can also be used for purely creative purposes. Look at SCP - that's one of the biggest wikis out there, and it is entirely for the purpose of creative writing. The SCP Wiki is the main source for SCP - it doesn't document anything. That's how wikis in general - not this wiki - work. There are examples of this a plenty out there. Your idea that all wikis must be purely documentarian and non-creative is just objectively incorrect, and is a misrepresentation of what a wiki is. It's misinformative, and it's important to make a distinction between THIS wiki and wikis as a whole. What I am saying is that wikis as a whole can be for creative purposes, but that that's not what this wiki is for. This wiki is indeed for documenting powers in fiction.

      All you have done is re-state your point that you think this is how a wiki should work. Maybe that's how you wanna use wikis, it's certainly how we do it here, fine. But don't try and tell people that's the ONLY way to use ANY wiki.

      There is no "true standard" for what a wiki is, and if there is one I'd love to see a link to that resource. Nobody gets to decide what all wikis must be like. We have our rules here, and they're different from what another wiki might be like. Also...

      " While I do honestly respect you, I can still say without hesitation that people in charge are suseptible to wrongdoings regardless, and I have seen it before. And I was seeing it again with how this wiki was handled. "

      If you have a specific problem with my conduct, feel free to bring the up to me. However, me disagreeing with you isn't the same as "wrongdoings". I'm completely open to criticism of how I do things, but I'm not interested in assault on my suitability as an admin for this wiki just because you see things differently.

        Loading editor
    • Necrotifice wrote:
      Wikis can be for creative ideas. People make wikis for creative purposes all the time - a wiki is just a way of formatting information that includes allowing for collaborative editing. Generally speaking wikis are often for documenting information, but they can also be used for purely creative purposes. Look at SCP - that's one of the biggest wikis out there, and it is entirely for the purpose of creative writing. The SCP Wiki is the main source for SCP - it doesn't document anything. That's how wikis in general - not this wiki - work. There are examples of this a plenty out there. Your idea that all wikis must be purely documentarian and non-creative is just objectively incorrect, and is a misrepresentation of what a wiki is. It's misinformative, and it's important to make a distinction between THIS wiki and wikis as a whole. What I am saying is that wikis as a whole can be for creative purposes, but that that's not what this wiki is for. This wiki is indeed for documenting powers in fiction.

      All you have done is re-state your point that you think this is how a wiki should work. Maybe that's how you wanna use wikis, it's certainly how we do it here, fine. But don't try and tell people that's the ONLY way to use ANY wiki.

      There is no "true standard" for what a wiki is, and if there is one I'd love to see a link to that resource. Nobody gets to decide what all wikis must be like. We have our rules here, and they're different from what another wiki might be like. Also...

      " While I do honestly respect you, I can still say without hesitation that people in charge are suseptible to wrongdoings regardless, and I have seen it before. And I was seeing it again with how this wiki was handled. "

      If you have a specific problem with my conduct, feel free to bring the up to me. However, me disagreeing with you isn't the same as "wrongdoings". I'm completely open to criticism of how I do things, but I'm not interested in assault on my suitability as an admin for this wiki just because you see things differently.

      I mean, I'm sure Wikipedia for example, doesn't allow creative ideas and concepts to begin with. I doubt it. Another thing on why exactly I am against creativity being used within all wikis, this is when for example, in the Superpower Wiki's case, some articles might get removed and erased, with all the efforts put into them wasted. Not just that, but having creativity-based standards in wikis will just make them unreliable to use.

      And from what I can tell, you and the rest of the higher-ups, are trying to have it both ways. If you are right about wikis being about both creative ideas and documentation, then consequently, it can be hard to tell if wikis are for creativity, or for documentation and preserving info. And that's the problem of lumping those two things together into wikis. This is why I sometimes use this division and categorizing tactic when lumping doesn't work well.

      I can go as far as to say that Ultipotence for example, which is a more elite level variation to Nigh Omnipotence, HOWEVER, it wasn't even fabricated and made up, it was documented as it appeared in media before. This is far better.

        Loading editor
    • Wikipedia is a single specific Wiki. Wikis as a whole are not associated with Wikipedia, though Wikipedia was the first wiki to my knowledge. Your concern about articles being erased when they are creative efforts is valid, that's why we started moving them to blog posts.

      We are NOT trying to have it both ways, and the fact that you think so tells me that you don't really know what's going on. The standard we are enforcing is that all powers MUST have at least one valid Known User to be created. This means they must actually exist in fiction. Powers made up by editors that have no basis in fiction are not allowed in the main space of the wiki, and get moved to blogs. Blogs are a place that people are allowed to make creative powers because that's part of the userspace, NOT the main space. The Userspace doesn't have to hold to the same standards because it was ALWAYS for creative purposes. Those are people's blogs, their character sheets, etc. This is not a change in standard - the blogs/userspace were always for personal and sometimes creative use.

      Wikis could be for creative or documentarian purposes or both. It depends on the wiki you're on, you just have to read the rules and get an understanding of THAT WIKI. I'm talking about wikis AS A WHOLE here, not the SP Wiki. It's really not that hard to figure out, I do not know why you are going on this tirade. Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of checking my wall to see these huge ass posts that I then have to reply to.

      Also, Ultipotence is not necessarily better than Nigh Omnipotence. Ultipotence is having infinite power, but none of the knowledge components of Omnipotence. Nigh-Omnipotence literally means "Almost omnipotent", and is basically Omnipotence except for a couple of minor traits that TECHNICALLY prevent them from being omnipotent. This means that they might have the power AND either omniscience or near-omniscience, but not be unkillable (i.e. Thanos).

      So yeah, to sum it up - wikis can be creative or documentarian. This wiki is the latter. Please stop going on these long ass rants at me.

        Loading editor
    • Necrotifice wrote:
      Wikipedia is a single specific Wiki. Wikis as a whole are not associated with Wikipedia, though Wikipedia was the first wiki to my knowledge. Your concern about articles being erased when they are creative efforts is valid, that's why we started moving them to blog posts.

      We are NOT trying to have it both ways, and the fact that you think so tells me that you don't really know what's going on. The standard we are enforcing is that all powers MUST have at least one valid Known User to be created. This means they must actually exist in fiction. Powers made up by editors that have no basis in fiction are not allowed in the main space of the wiki, and get moved to blogs. Blogs are a place that people are allowed to make creative powers because that's part of the userspace, NOT the main space. The Userspace doesn't have to hold to the same standards because it was ALWAYS for creative purposes. Those are people's blogs, their character sheets, etc. This is not a change in standard - the blogs/userspace were always for personal and sometimes creative use.

      Wikis could be for creative or documentarian purposes or both. It depends on the wiki you're on, you just have to read the rules and get an understanding of THAT WIKI. I'm talking about wikis AS A WHOLE here, not the SP Wiki. It's really not that hard to figure out, I do not know why you are going on this tirade. Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of checking my wall to see these huge ass posts that I then have to reply to.

      Also, Ultipotence is not necessarily better than Nigh Omnipotence. Ultipotence is having infinite power, but none of the knowledge components of Omnipotence. Nigh-Omnipotence literally means "Almost omnipotent", and is basically Omnipotence except for a couple of minor traits that TECHNICALLY prevent them from being omnipotent. This means that they might have the power AND either omniscience or near-omniscience, but not be unkillable (i.e. Thanos).

      So yeah, to sum it up - wikis can be creative or documentarian. This wiki is the latter. Please stop going on these long ass rants at me.

      Okay, fine, but that doesn't mean my right to calling the higher-ups out whenever they do screw up is lost.

        Loading editor
    • Right, and if you think I've screwed up you're welcome to call that out.But there's a big difference between me screwing up and you disagreeing with me. Just because I don't see things your way doesn't mean I'm guilty of some misconduct, and I take such accusations very seriously.

        Loading editor
    • Necrotifice wrote:
      Right, and if you think I've screwed up you're welcome to call that out.But there's a big difference between me screwing up and you disagreeing with me. Just because I don't see things your way doesn't mean I'm guilty of some misconduct, and I take such accusations very seriously.

      Okay look, I apologize again for giving you some trouble, I just want the wiki to be better, just like the rest of you guys. I am not trying to make things worse.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.