User:Faceless Wanderer/User talk:Wickeddarkman: Difference between revisions
>@legacy41915546 m (→Discussion) |
im>Wickeddarkman No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==Known individuals== | ==Known individuals== | ||
[[User:MORT|MORT]][[User:VestDan|VestDan]] | (listed alphabetically...) | ||
[[User:Magic Mage|Magic Mage]][[User:MORT|MORT]][[User:VestDan|VestDan]] | |||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
Yadda, yadda, yadda... | |||
==Reply to mtgsalvation forum: Ready for copy/paste== | |||
As far as I can see it people in here return to two basic oppinions. | |||
The first and foremost is that any contents in here have to be fact. | |||
The second is that this fact shall be expressed in an unbiased way. | |||
Well, those two basic oppinions are actually destroying almost every single page ever been written in here. I'll argue for that. | |||
Take for example the few pages on cards. In an academically unbiased wiki all cards would have to be treated with equal importance. To focus on black lotus and not on pearl unicorn is inderectly a very biased action, so either you make a page for every existing card or you delete all cards previously focussed on, thats the only way to do it in an academically fair way. Also, magic continously release new cards that change the "cardscape" so any claim that we should only focus on the best cards is doomed. The metagame is changing so fast that all pages in here will be hopeless behind. So we cant say that any of the "paged" cards are built on immutable facts. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all cardrelated pages. | |||
Next topic. Hmm MTG fantasy novels. Some of you will probably state that everything in these books are facts. WRONG. Many forums discussing the novels have found inconsistencies between them. They state different facts about the same things. So since the academic view is that fact is fact that just wont work! Furthermore the novels have been created with the intention to bring emotional reactions to the readers. People will respond differently and interpretate differently. There will be no "true" interpretation of any of these litteral productions, you cannot favor one "version" instead of another, that would be a bias against any minority view. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all bookrelated pages. | |||
Well what about the magic jargon/terminology I hear you say, it has been on the net for long and it is technically facts? WRONG! language is biased, it depends on the generation reading it. Jargon mutates as well, if you intent on keeping that in the wiki we will all soon be etymologists. A gay person was a happy person once, people were proud to have family names like gaylord. Look at the word now, only a few people knows it's original meaning, and we cant be sure that it didnt have an even earlier meaning. Language in itself can never be a fact, it is too slippery. Gamemechanics may be altered. There will be different wordings. MTG terminologies can become obsolete (or is it burried?). CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki delete all pages on terminology, wordings, errata and such. | |||
Oh, you say, what about ... WRONG!!! | |||
I deny you of all pages. Your current rules should consequentially lead to the deletion of your precious unbiased academic wiki... | |||
I say free the wiki, remove the tyrany of restrictions, because nothing in here is truly allowed if you really follow your rules. | |||
You just havent been shown how dumb your "laws" are. | |||
Now I would like to point to the attention that one person replied that my replies still sucked, none of you wanted to know how I intended to convert your wiki into a living metamind. | |||
According to the laws I stated I lost. CONCLUSSION: You may now delete my reply. It doesnt belong here anyway... | |||
Wickeddarkman, opposer of tyrants have tried to .... .... .... | |||
Revision as of 10:44, 29 January 2007
Workbook
Your Counterbalance still focused on concept and not fact. need a preliminary section about the card--the set(s) it is from, when released, what playformats. how successful they have been.
I know, I know, but I'm caugth up in a debate, okay???
card tags: Glimpse of Nature
Title
subtitles
more subtitles
etc.
- REDIRECT Glimpse of Nature
- you can sign in the talk pages by writting ~~~~
Known individuals
(listed alphabetically...) Magic MageMORTVestDan
Discussion
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Reply to mtgsalvation forum: Ready for copy/paste
As far as I can see it people in here return to two basic oppinions. The first and foremost is that any contents in here have to be fact. The second is that this fact shall be expressed in an unbiased way.
Well, those two basic oppinions are actually destroying almost every single page ever been written in here. I'll argue for that.
Take for example the few pages on cards. In an academically unbiased wiki all cards would have to be treated with equal importance. To focus on black lotus and not on pearl unicorn is inderectly a very biased action, so either you make a page for every existing card or you delete all cards previously focussed on, thats the only way to do it in an academically fair way. Also, magic continously release new cards that change the "cardscape" so any claim that we should only focus on the best cards is doomed. The metagame is changing so fast that all pages in here will be hopeless behind. So we cant say that any of the "paged" cards are built on immutable facts. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all cardrelated pages.
Next topic. Hmm MTG fantasy novels. Some of you will probably state that everything in these books are facts. WRONG. Many forums discussing the novels have found inconsistencies between them. They state different facts about the same things. So since the academic view is that fact is fact that just wont work! Furthermore the novels have been created with the intention to bring emotional reactions to the readers. People will respond differently and interpretate differently. There will be no "true" interpretation of any of these litteral productions, you cannot favor one "version" instead of another, that would be a bias against any minority view. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all bookrelated pages.
Well what about the magic jargon/terminology I hear you say, it has been on the net for long and it is technically facts? WRONG! language is biased, it depends on the generation reading it. Jargon mutates as well, if you intent on keeping that in the wiki we will all soon be etymologists. A gay person was a happy person once, people were proud to have family names like gaylord. Look at the word now, only a few people knows it's original meaning, and we cant be sure that it didnt have an even earlier meaning. Language in itself can never be a fact, it is too slippery. Gamemechanics may be altered. There will be different wordings. MTG terminologies can become obsolete (or is it burried?). CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki delete all pages on terminology, wordings, errata and such.
Oh, you say, what about ... WRONG!!!
I deny you of all pages. Your current rules should consequentially lead to the deletion of your precious unbiased academic wiki...
I say free the wiki, remove the tyrany of restrictions, because nothing in here is truly allowed if you really follow your rules.
You just havent been shown how dumb your "laws" are.
Now I would like to point to the attention that one person replied that my replies still sucked, none of you wanted to know how I intended to convert your wiki into a living metamind.
According to the laws I stated I lost. CONCLUSSION: You may now delete my reply. It doesnt belong here anyway...
Wickeddarkman, opposer of tyrants have tried to .... .... ....