Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-1370845-20150505005336/@comment-4991685-20150505124229

"DrodoEmpire, your post here is dedicated much more to attacking me than it is to actually responding to the issues presented, and I find your use of "good day to you" and the tone of your post condescending."

I didn't once attack you as a person in my response, nor would I. What I did do is harshly criticize your proposal, which in hindsight came off as hostile. Nonetheless, I will not apologize for my opinion in the matter.

"The discussion is about the views of the community, amd not just mine; I want to hear everyone's opinions, and not everyone's opinions on my own."

I delivered my opinion on the matter. But as well I felt it important to criticize the way you presented it; I felt the way you did so was potentially misleading to those coming into the debate without further context.

Personally I think its important to introduce an issue in an unbiased a manner as possible before delivering your own thoughts on the matter. Of course, this is very difficult (everybody has bias or feelings on a matter), but I feel it may be something to keep in mind in the future.

"If you have a problem with how I made the arguments I did, I encourage you instead to make your own arguments better."

Again, I won't deny that my statements were strongly-worded, and quite possibly to an excessive extent. However, while I take issue in the structure of your introduction to the issue/argument on the basis of it being potentially misleading in its wording, you seem take issue with mine for being personally offensive; Which in my mind is a far lesser charge.

"The information in our articles currently is objectively irrelevant to the subject of Spore. If you wish to prove otherwise, I encourage you to demonstrate to me how the personal life of Will Wright will help someone get through Spore's space stage. It simply does not relate to the gameplay of Spore in any way relevant to the reader."

Again, we disagree on what this wiki is fundimentally about. You seem to think this is purely a game content wiki, rather than more broadly a wiki about the game and its surrounding elements (as I see it). I see no harm in the existence of a page outlining Will Wright.

"When the wiki is specifically about Spore, all content must be related to Spore. And this reason is why we should give second tier coverage at best to information that is only partially related to a Spore subject."

I disagree with your conclusion that the developers, publishers, and the individual who originally hatched the idea of spore are only partially related, and that we should intentionally degrade our policy of information due to such arbitrary limits.

"This is why we have Spore-like games, and not individual articles on each Spore-like game."

That's because of a few reasons:

1. This is genuinely not relevant to Spore itself. I consider the publishers, developers, and, again, the one who originally had the idea relevant to spore.

2. That is an exhaustive, no doubt incomplete list. While we can definitely spare the time to write three, well-researched articles on Maxis, EA, and Will Wright (yes, definitely with content pertaining mostly to Spore but still preferably with a solid background on all three), we'd likely be wasting our time writing articles on all of the Spore-like games, partially because there is so many of them, and also because of reason number 1.

I'll stop countering quotes, because for the most part the rest of your piece concerns the theoretical pages themselves. In this, I'll present a sort of compromise:

While I agree that the pages should mostly concern Spore, I still feel as though they should contain sufficient background information so as to give context, and a fair understanding of the organization, person, etc. outside of Spore to the reader. In this way, we won't be so much deleting information as we will be optimizing it; Condensing the information in such a way that it primarily concerns Spore, but also gives context and information outside of the Spore so as to give a somewhat more well-rounded account.

A (very rough) example of a Maxis page may be like this:

- An introduction - A brief early history, concerning its founding and early projects (perhaps 1-3 paragraphs?) - Another section concerning its work on Spore; Development, release, and post-release expansions, etc... (2-4 paragraphs should suffice) - And another short section concerning something like after Spore to modern day, taking another 1, 2 paragraphs at most.

Perhaps with another few sections, or a few less, this'd make a well-rounded Maxis page. It primarily concerns Spore, but also gives some context outside of Spore, which'd make it a richer and on the whole more useful source of information, in my opinion. The same idea can be applied to other pages. I do hope this is a fair compromise we can agree to, and if so, then I volunteer to assist in rewriting these pages.

Thanks for reading.