*sigh* I should have posted yesterday instead of waiting to clean it up. Now what I was writing is missing stuff from new comments.
----
VegettoEX wrote:I can guarantee you 100% that not a single article ever created on what this community writes would ever link to that wiki as its citations. They have showcased a complete disregard for research methods, have little-to-no folks actually fluent in Japanese (never mind those who own the original reference materials), and so on and so forth.
The use of "link" in that comment was not meant to imply citation, it wasn't even meant to imply any sense of the Daizex wiki considering the wiki reliable in any way. The context of that comment was more of a "What if..." ideal where the editors obsessed with misinformation were gone, and there were actually people trying to take the content that people kept recirculating misinformation from, note that it has issue, and fix the issues in it.
The "cross-linking" in question when I actually thought it up was actually referring to the Dragon Ball Encyclopedia linking to Daizex wiki articles in a sort of "And while we try to fix this content you're obsessed with reading, here's a better sourced more reliable article you can read for real citations and reliable information." while the cross back was little more than a acknowledgement of that, in fact I originally thought of it more as a snide "Here's a less reliable article that unfortunately a lot of people like to consider a reliable resource, since we have the facts, if you feel like it why don't you go ahead and try to inject some sanity from here into that article" type link to the wiki.
The whole "linking" simply came from the abstract hope of syphoning people out of the Dragon Ball Wiki, through the Dragon Ball Encyclopedia, and ending up on the Daizex wiki. The Dragon Ball Encyclopedia being the "*sigh* it's a necessary evil" bridge converting people recirculating misinformation from the Wikia into people who read the Daizex wiki for the information they rely on. "Have everyone just start reading the Daizex wiki" would be a real "ideal", though practically there's little way to just switch "everyone", so attracting people to the better content through channels they're already comfortable with is much more likely to work. After all, "Hey, we moved, would you mind updating your link to us?" works much better for getting people to change links than "Hey, that wiki over there you're linking to has issues, would you mind changing those links to our wiki instead?". The latter being more liable to get a larger portion of the people asked to scoff off the comment.
Fox666 wrote:I would say the first problem of it is that it takes the old american dub as priority. While Wikis like One Piece attempt to use the information based on the japanese version, some nostagic fan made the wrong choice for the Dragon Ball Wiki. And like everything in the computer days, once something is estabilished it's hard to get rid of it (i.e. Microsoft products).
VegettoEX wrote:Well, yeah, we've long-since-covered the fact that one of our major ideological differences is that they place emphasis on an adaptation of the series, rather than its original source material. That's the least of their problems, though! (Well, actually, I'd argue that it's the root cause of tons of other issues, but whatever...)
Yup, that has been long-since-covered. Essentially I've already caught that, and it's been covered long enough that I guess I skipped past mentioning it's already on my list of things that should be fixed. In fact I already have an idea that could potentially stifle any "most of the readers [are familiar with the FUNimation dub so other naming schemes would be hard for them to navigate]" based argument against changing the name preferences. And similar arguments against changing the source priority of the wiki to what other wiki and groups like One Piece/Narutopedia/Daizex have should theoretically have some counter arguments floating around in my head.
----
Yes, the Dragon Ball Encyclopedia and Wikia lacks users with good Japanese skills and proper reference sources for that information. It's filled with users attached to misinformation, and other users without references who stick to editing things not dependent on whether content is sourced or unsourced, like categorization, the implementation side of infoboxes, and so on... Hence I'm talking with the people that "do" have that information and trying to fix things so they won't be bitten again.
The Narutopedia was actually in a somewhat similar state in the past. In fact originally the Narutopedia perpetuated (potentially even created) the incorrect use of "Kira Hachi" as a name for Killer Bee (キラービー, Kirābī). After an -- unfortunately rough -- introduction of a new user who had good Japanese skill the wiki improved. And that user ended up as the go-to for detailed information and correction on Japanese translations on the Narutopedia and some other wiki too. Unfortunately, fairly obviously, that user never ended up as part of the Dragon Ball Wiki's community. Not that alone that would fix the wiki anyways, since even if he has the Japanese skill, he likely doesn't have the Dragon Ball reference material.
I've basically been tiptoeing, trying to get information I need, and see what side of the line the top users on the wiki stand on, before attempting to weed out the users that would actually get in the way of trying to fix the misinformation on the wiki. And if the top users don't stand on the right side of the line, or the other users can't be weeded out and make the attempt fail, then fine, I can give up with you and help you with the Daizex wiki.
From the looks of it, there are already three users from the wiki who came here and agree with the Daizex community that the wiki needs a lot of fixing, there's one more "bureaucrat" (just a permission-flag name) who I need to talk with, one user who's focus seams to be on images and nothing to do with the text (who, with some image policies defined by the community could probably be straightened out), another who seams to focus on featured quotes and cleanup after other users, and that's a majority of the community there. Besides that there are only about two more users. One might be co-operative, one might have to go. But in all, it's not much against fact checking remaining to weed out.
----
Now, back to my programming job before I do anything else here.
. It's on my list.
and if you want a good topping on top of that, I'd love a <ref> citing something correcting the erroneous parts of the “Ultimate DBZ Info Site” next to that trivia item. Nothing crushes a good "he said" vs. "he said" debate on changes to the facts of an article both without obvious sources apparent from the text itself like embedding a good citation inside one of them.
