Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Yossarian on October 18, 2009, 01:59:40 PM
-
I've just started updating the Aces High II Wikipedia page. It was in a sorry state (to say the least :p), and someone had removed most of the text on the page for the reason of "Cleanup" :huh.
Anyway, if someone could update the 'aircraft' section on that page, it would be much appreciated! If you don't know too much about how Wikipedia editing works, just follow the format of the other planes in the list :)! Also, in terms of logos, what are the limitations on putting the Aces High II logo on Wikipedia - I'm largely clueless on that.
-
Just looked at the page. Some parts read more like an advertisement than an objective description of the game. My $.02.
-
Ok, I'll be fixing it up a bit more in the next few days, since I'm now on half term (finally! :D)
-
Wikipedia are always such a pain to maintain. You have people out there that think it's absolutely HILARIOUS to vandalize the pagse with pointless drivel and insults. Y'know, even though it takes one click to fix.
-
are you updating the regular wikipedia or HTC's own AKWiki? just curious........
edit: it is the regular wikipedia........btw the Oct 22 , 2008 version seemed a hell of alot more indepth then what is currently there.........
just saying...... seems everyone has their own idea of what should be on this particular page......
......am glad their are moderators/controllers for our AHWiki here at Aces High to combat the nonsense that appears over on that wikipedia........
-
......am glad their are moderators/controllers for our AHWiki here at Aces High to combat the nonsense that appears over on that wikipedia........
Double-edged sword, really. Sometimes I wish that all articles at Wikipedia were moderated. On the other hand, I've had to deal with the tyrants at some of the Wikias which is NOT fun.
-
Double-edged sword, really. Sometimes I wish that all articles at Wikipedia were moderated. On the other hand, I've had to deal with the tyrants at some of the Wiki's which is NOT fun.
completely understandable, Saxman......
just an example...on HTC's AHwiki, some people have included their own "personal views" of how to fly offensively or defensively in a particular plane type...... yet they have not posted "who" they actually are! this to me is verymisleading in the fact that it is a "Personal Opinion" of how onemight go about flying the plane and is not at all the overall views of the rest of the Aces High Community......
currently ( for past several weeks ) I have been taking notes of such gibberish to bring to the attention of the AHwiki controllers. So they can go about editing these inconsistency's of misleading information......
it was my understanding that only "Factual Information" or "proved Facts" is what was asked for for the AHwiki. Not someones opinion or self educated theory...........
at least that is my understanding of what HTC has asked for
-
I tried maintaining it for a while. Between the idiotic, clueless, busybody Wikipedia Nazi moderators (there's a special place in Hades for them, I hope) and the people who think it's HILARIOUS to put a bunch of crap into the text even though it causes work for other people then to clean it up, it became quite an annoying task.
-
I tried maintaining it for a while. Between the idiotic, clueless, busybody Wikipedia Nazi moderators (there's a special place in Hades for them, I hope) and the people who think it's HILARIOUS to put a bunch of crap into the text even though it causes work for other people then to clean it up, it became quite an annoying task.
One of my favorites was a guy who wouldn't let me post a problem with how the Deadliest Warrior handled the Viking, even though I have a written source (Viking Weapons and Warfare by J.K. Siddorn. If you're into that sort of thing, I highly recommend it) that outlined several faults in their presentation.
His reason?
The book I was using as the reference wasn't written SPECIFICALLY to debunk the program.
:huh :huh :huh
-
One of my favorites was a guy who wouldn't let me post a problem with how the Deadliest Warrior handled the Viking, even though I have a written source (Viking Weapons and Warfare by J.K. Siddorn. If you're into that sort of thing, I highly recommend it) that outlined several faults in their presentation.
His reason?
The book I was using as the reference wasn't written SPECIFICALLY to debunk the program.
:huh :huh :huh
Oh, yes. I see that as totally fitting for a Wiki moderator. Maybe not all of them are rediculous, meddling pinheads, but the ones I've interacted certainly seem to be.
-
Oh, yes. I see that as totally fitting for a Wiki moderator. Maybe not all of them are rediculous, meddling pinheads, but the ones I've interacted certainly seem to be.
Heh, well I guess I'll get my own experiences with them soon ;)
Are these 'moderators' just general people who exist on Wikipedia, or do they actually have a formal role?
-
Are these 'moderators' just general people who exist on Wikipedia, or do they actually have a formal role?
Anyone can generally edit posts, but the moderators have some special status and abilities on Wikipedia. They are the sort of person who has the time to re-edit your entries several times a day in any sort of battle of revisions, and if they decide to do so, they can get your editing abilities taken away.
It's a random thing on Wikipedia. You can post things and not run into clueless, twit moderators. Or, just through random chance (or maybe because there are frequent edits because you are cleaning up after one of the "it's so hilarious to post some crap" people), one of these clueless moderators notices the entry and takes an interest (which is very bad). Then he or she starts deciding that you can't post which aircraft are availble in the game because your reference for that is the manufacturer's website as opposed to a third-party book in a library or that you can't post any screenshots of the game because the idiot doesn't feel that your particular screenshot added anything useful to the Wikipedia entry.
-
Thanks, I'll do my best with these people... :noid
-
he or she starts deciding that you can't post which aircraft are availble in the game because your reference for that is the manufacturer's website as opposed to a third-party book in a library...
Some moderators are WAY too anal about the "third-party source" thing. Especially in this case. If hitech's own website says there's certain planes in the game, chances are that's pretty reliable information.
-
Do any of you have links to (or just know of) any third-party reviews, or even mentions of Aces High? I haven't found a thing, and the article's pretty much a lost cause unless there are some 3rd party reviews etc referenced in it.
-
Do any of you have links to (or just know of) any third-party reviews, or even mentions of Aces High? I haven't found a thing, and the article's pretty much a lost cause unless there are some 3rd party reviews etc referenced in it.
try SimHQ.com
Combatsim.com <---? I believe
will try and dig you up some more........
-
I rarely ever check anything at wikipedia. That type setup is rife with poor information. The SS runs around there like a HOA perpetuating poor info.
-
Just checked AHWIKI over, and it pretty much seems like hodge-podge of actual information, and impressions, thoughts, and opinions about planes and how to use them.
-
Just checked AHWIKI over, and it pretty much seems like hodge-podge of actual information, and impressions, thoughts, and opinions about planes and how to use them.
I'm talking about Wikipedia itself, not AHWiki here :)
Also, thanks TQ!!!
-
Wiki's like that too. Not so bad, but still.....
-
Some links I've dug up but it's slim pickings out there..
Track IR - http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/03-enhanced-games/game-aces-high-2.html (http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/03-enhanced-games/game-aces-high-2.html)
Associated Content - http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/946149/aces_high_2_for_pc_game_review_pg2_pg2.html?cat=19 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/946149/aces_high_2_for_pc_game_review_pg2_pg2.html?cat=19)
Some reviews on gamespot - http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/sim/aceshighii/player_review.html?id=569045&tag=player-reviews;previous (http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/sim/aceshighii/player_review.html?id=569045&tag=player-reviews;previous)
6 in all I think.
-
I remember when those evil bastards that call themselves S.A.P.P hijacked the AH Wiki and put in their propaganda. Was great fun.
ack-ack
-
We should create a third party site which talks of aces high so you can use it as a third party reference in you Wiki AH2. Wait that sounds a lot like AHwiki !!! I'm confused now :D
-
Just checked AHWIKI over, and it pretty much seems like hodge-podge of actual information, and impressions, thoughts, and opinions about planes and how to use them.
I'd like to know what you think should be on it? and in all seriousness create an account and contribute to it if you feel it needs fixed in some way the more people that contribute and debate it the better it will be.
I might be wrong here but I always thought the idea of wiki was an evolutionary process where many people correct or add to content until you end up with, well good content! Its all very well deriding the whole thing as jibberish or hodge podge but the time you spend slating it could be time spent helping to make it better!
Regards peoples opinions thoughts impressions etc I don't think thats a bad thing most of the content is lifted from sodas Aces High comparison and added to, years ago not long after I started I loved reading his opinions on the planes in there I would literally sit for hours and read them over and over as well as looking up information on who flew the planes and the pilots stories etc also websites like Netaces had some great reads. Then again this is just my opinion!
If you don't like it nobody will be offended if you add your opinion to the mix of ahwiki and edit yourself mate :cheers:
:salute
-
We should create a third party site which talks of aces high so you can use it as a third party reference in you Wiki AH2. Wait that sounds a lot like AHwiki !!! I'm confused now :D
Yeah, but then someone's gonna come along and start complaining that it isn't reputable or something lol...
-
Needed an aircraft/vehicle list. Just added that.
For some reviews and things check out IGN and GameSpy, those would be my top 2 bets. :salute
-
Needed an aircraft/vehicle list. Just added that.
Apparently this was against the Wiki rules, as it's already been removed.
-
Apparently this was against the Wiki rules, as it's already been removed.
o.O Uhm... alright, whatever floats their boat.