Wikipedia-wingcommander

AKAImBatman

Spaceman
If you look at the history, you'll find that the article was put together by quite a few individuals. Part of the work probably comes from memory, some from research, and some of the more salient details (e.g. Concordia history) come from members of this forum.

Probably the most recognizable contributor is LOAF, who I believe has begun using his given name during edits. Another familiar face is Bob McDob, who currently works on the confusingly named Wing Commander: Saga project.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Bob had me edit a bunch of entries a while back. I haven't looked at them since whenever that was -- I guess I can go over it all again somewhen.
 

AKAImBatman

Spaceman
vindicator said:
I think bob belongs to reckoning, not saga.

Whoops. Good catch. Bob McDob belongs to the (not so confusingly named) Wing Commander Reckoning project. :)

Sorry, all the Saga buzz has that stuck in my head. I keep forgetting about the Reckoning project. (Probably because I don't have Freelancer! :p)
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Wikipedia has a nice amount of information about Wing Commander, and other fictional universes.
 

luminon

Spaceman
I've used Wikipedia for quite a long time for my school work, but I never realised it had stuff about Wing Commander. The information here is pretty good and makes an interesting read.
 

Edfilho

Cry some more!
those using Wiki for serious stuff beware, it sometimes contains wrong stuff... Better check around before trusting the fate of scholl stuff and job stuff on it. But overall it is pretty cool.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
That's truth, Wikipedia is known to have inaccurate and/or biased information. Somtimes articles on hot subjects have to be locked.
 

Lazy Panda

Spaceman
Thanks for warning me of the fact that Wiki's information may be inaccurate, I'll probably look for books when I need reliable information.
 

AKAImBatman

Spaceman
Lazy Panda said:
Thanks for warning me of the fact that Wiki's information may be inaccurate, I'll probably look for books when I need reliable information.

I wouldn't worry *that* much. The fears of Wikipedia's misinformation are largely blown out of proportion. I use Wikipedia as a referenece to point people too on subjects I'm reasonably familiar with. I've never found Wikipedia to carry incorrect information.

How wikipedia should be used, is you should make it a starting point during research. i.e. Find what you're looking for and then check the refereneces! Not only will you be able to confirm Wikipedia's article, but you can also delve into greater depth on the subject and then cite those references yourself.

Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an authoritive source. A teacher might not mind a reference or two from Britannica, but they'd probably be pretty upset if that was the only source you checked!
 

Edfilho

Cry some more!
Yeah, I agree with Bruce Wayne. it's not that you cannot absolutelly trust it. just check the facts a bit, though. And checking a Brittanica in a library wouldn't hurt.

The biggest problem with Wiki isn't really outright wrong data, it is more a matter of bias and completeness.
 

Kon

Spaceman
Wikipedia is awesome, I'm not suprised it has WC data
My philosophy professor is in there too
 
Top