Dragon Ball Wiki Unreliable?

[Makai]

Does anyone know if Dragon Ball Encyclopedia is trustworthy? It seems to have better info, but I haven't used it for much.

[TheDevilsCorpse]

It's basically the same site. Some of the info is different (and sometimes better), but a lot of the pages are just directly ported over.

[Kakacarrottop]

Unlike DBwiki they use the correct Japanese terms instead of the FUNimation ones, but like TheDevilsCorpse said, it's basically just a mirror site. Also it has far less activity, so a lot of stuff on it is probably outdated.

[Lord Frieza]

Ok now I know for a fact you cant trust this wiki.

I just looked up their Frieza bio page and founds something interesting. I got down to the power section of the page that talked about GT and read this little gem.

Additionally, Dr. Gero believes that out of all of the villains in Hell, Frieza and Cell stand the best chance against Goku, and Bulma and Goku both reference them as being the most powerful of all of the deceased villains - which includes the likes of General Rilldo, who possessed power even greater than Majin Buu.

Know correct me if I'm wrong but Gero NEVER even mentioned Frieza's name during that whole saga and only talked about Cell once in a conversation that had nothing to do with who would be fighting Goku. This is the kind of thing that annoys me. Worse I cant help but feel (although I can not state that this is what their doing) trying to find ways to create ties between GT and the new movies and Super despite the fact that as it stands none exist.

GT and Super are two completely different and as of right now incompatible continuations of Dragon Ball. GT was aired 18 years ago! They could never have predicted that Toriyama would do his own new continuation all these years later. Hell until about 4 or 5 years ago none never expected to see any new true Toriyama material ever. I know a lot of people like GT (I like some of it) and want it to be the true continuation of the series but thats no excuse for trying to pollute the the facts with personal speculations and false information.

[Avery]

The only Wiki that I don't trust. It follows Funi's dub so blindly, and according to their polls, most of the contributors there have not watched the Japanese version or even read any manga chapter. I hate how every article is introduced by a lame dub line.
I hate how they treat some dub changes as facts, such as GT's "ten" year gap. There are some references to the original lines of some scenes, but when they find the dub lines more "interesting", they don't even mention that the scene is different in the Japanese version.
And, *sigh*, you know when the dub adds unnecessary dialogue to silent scenes? I rolled my eyes when I read "Vegeta mocking 18" and "18 not too happy with Vegeta's joke" in the image gallery when in reality, there was no joke or any dialogue at all.

[Polyphase Avatron]

The only Wiki that I don't trust.

You trust Conservapedia and Metapedia?

[DemonRin]

If I need to grab some random factoid like a voice actor or something I jump to Dragonball Encyclopedia. It seems they used DB Wikia as a base but are trying to fix a lot of it. They use the right terms at least.

But yeah, Dragonball is one of those animes where the US version changed SO MUCH yet so many people got hooked on the show that way, that you end up with people wanting their nostalgia to be 100% true and will treat that as the say all end all be all.

[Baggie_Saiyan]

The only Wiki that I don't trust. It follows Funi's dub so blindly, and according to their polls, most of the contributors there have not watched the Japanese version or even read any manga chapter. I hate how every article is introduced by a lame dub line.
I hate how they treat some dub changes as facts, such as GT's "ten" year gap. There are some references to the original lines of some scenes, but when they find the dub lines more "interesting", they don't even mention that the scene is different in the Japanese version.
And, *sigh*, you know when the dub adds unnecessary dialogue to silent scenes? I rolled my eyes when I read "Vegeta mocking 18" and "18 not too happy with Vegeta's joke" in the image gallery when in reality, there was no joke or any dialogue at all.

Why not consider it a dub Wiki? The old FUNi dub happened and is as legit as the Japanese all those things happened in that dubbed world so I don't see the problem with the Wiki being dub-centric that is their and their followers problem, sure it doesn't stop misinformation spreading but lets be honest the the DB fandom is too far gone I mean if FUNi's own attempt in Kai didn't work then I don't really think an accurate DB Wiki is going to do much wonders, besides aren't we going to get one soon from the good folks of Kanzenshuu?

[Kakacarrottop]

The only Wiki that I don't trust. It follows Funi's dub so blindly, and according to their polls, most of the contributors there have not watched the Japanese version.

To be fair, it's an English language site aimed at English speaking people. You can't blame it for having a preference for the English version. Most wikis i've seen for anime shows also mainly follow the English adaption terms.

I still think it's a decent source of information for newer or more casual fans.

[Avery]

The only Wiki that I don't trust.

You trust Conservapedia and Metapedia?

Never heard of them.
What I meant is, out of the few wikis I check regularly.

[Herms]

It'd be one thing if it simply used Funi dub terms, but a lot of the information they have is simply made up and/or pure speculation, as Lord Freeza pointed out above. And as Avery noted, despite being an English language site aimed at English speaking people, it largely ignores Viz's English translation of the manga in favor of the anime, apparently for not much reason beyond their contributors being mostly unfamiliar with it.

If it's supposed to be a DB Funi dub wiki, it's not very good. If it's supposed to be a wiki for English language DB in general, it's outright bad. And if it's supposed to be a wiki for DB as a whole, it's not worth talking about.

[Polyphase Avatron]

The only Wiki that I don't trust.

You trust Conservapedia and Metapedia?

Never heard of them.
What I meant is, out of the few wikis I check regularly.

Check this article then. Funny stuff.

[Avery]

Check this article then. Funny stuff.

Wha-? This is hilarious! can't believe something like this even exists.

[Bullza]

On the home page of this site it has a Wiki but there's nothing there. Is that something that's been worked on? If this site did a Dragon Ball wiki I imagine it's be pretty good if it was only available to members of this website.

The other one isn't bad but it's all over the place. I'm looking at the timeline now and it's just a mess. It included all the manga events, the filler events, the movies events, all the different video games and spinoff manga's and OVA's.

It's got way too much insignificant detail in there too.

[UltimateHammerBro]

Regarding what events should be portrayed in a Wiki article, I really like how it's done in the Dune Wiki.
The franchise was originally composed of six books written by the same author, but now there are a bunch of prequels and sequels by the author's son and another sci-fi writer. Since some of the information differs and the fanbase is divided over whether to consider the expanded universe canon or not, there's a "Original Dune" article and a "Expanded Dune" article when necessary.

A Dragon Ball Wiki could do pretty much the same thing: an "Original Dragon Ball" only using the manga as a base, and a "Expanded Dragon Ball" including fillers/GT/movies/video games/Super.

[Cetra]

Just as reliable as any Wiki, just as reliable as any Dragon Ball fan.

There are plenty of perfectly reliable Wikis.

Except there are none. Anything Wikipedia/Wiki related is not accepted for treatments by professors for good reasons.

[Kamiccolo9]

Just as reliable as any Wiki, just as reliable as any Dragon Ball fan.

There are plenty of perfectly reliable Wikis.

The problem with the DB Wiki is that its staff actively resist edits that go against their perceived view of what their site is, whatever that is, since, as Herms already explained, the Wiki has a serious identity crisis and isn't particularly good at what it wants to do anyway.

[DoomieDoomie911]

Just as reliable as any Wiki, just as reliable as any Dragon Ball fan.

There are plenty of perfectly reliable Wikis.

Except there are none. Anything Wikipedia/Wiki related is not accepted for treatments by professors for good reasons.

I understand why Wikipedia isn't acceptable in a school setting, but it is pretty reliable overall. Yeah, there are some mistakes here and there, but it's pretty good considering just how big it is.

[Kamiccolo9]

Just as reliable as any Wiki, just as reliable as any Dragon Ball fan.

There are plenty of perfectly reliable Wikis.

Except there are none. Anything Wikipedia/Wiki related is not accepted for treatments by professors for good reasons.

I am a professor. Wikis can be perfectly reliable, they are just not considered professional. I can say with zero hesitation that most academics make use of Wikipedia to help them with their work. They just don't rely solely on it.

[Kid Buu]

Wikipedia-type sites and TVTropes were banned citations when I was doing Media Essays. I tended to use the citations they used on the Wikipedia to get my information, though.