Talk:Ravenchase
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What do you consider non - neutral? And how does it differ from the go game,wizards of the coast or any of the stuff on the game page and the like? This page has less adjectives than any of those pages and appears much more neutral and factual than those. If you can articulate what is non-neutral, it will help improve this page.
Whoever is adding Ravenchase material to Wikipedia appears to be treating Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising. It's not, yet over the past couple of years edits simply to add Ravenchase's name / link have been made to many pages that are wholly inappropriate ("treasure hunting (marine)" comes to mind).
"Sometimes, people come to Wikipedia with the intention of spamming -- creating articles which are mere advertisements or self-promotion, or spewing external links to a Web site over many articles." I personally feel after watching Ravenchase edits over the past two years that whoever is doing these edits is doing so in a wholly inappropriate matter.
The Go Game is perhaps in a similar vein, but I haven't seen them do inappropriate spamming as I have Ravenchase. The Game page seems wholly appropriate---one of the important differences is almost all the events on it are not trying to sell anything like Ravenchase appears to be, the Game is by and large noncommercial, and you don't see any Game events spammed over multiple Wikipedia pages like Ravenchase has. WotC is an entirely different matter. They have an enormous following and sell millions of dollars worth of product, and have broad interest (note dozens to hundreds of people have edited the article in the recent past). If we made a printed encyclopedia today, WotC would be in it. Ravenchase's entry was written by one person who clearly has close ties to the company (close enough to run a preclue, anyway). The reason this article is currently in Wikipedia---and the reason many edits have been made over the past few years to spam Ravenchase's name all over Wikipedia - is simply to promote Ravenchase. "Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place." That's why it's not neutral. It's written like an advertisement, and it sounds like an advertisement. 67.101.213.182 18:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a tremendous amount of hypocrisy. WOTC is a company selling its products, in fact it lists dozens of them all laden with non neutral descriptions. The Ravenchase page is written in a completely factual manner. There isn't a word on it that tells how great it is. It doesn't have an adjective on it in fact. It is a national company with branches in over 16 states and operations all over the world. How is it less legitimate than WOTC? Please identify what is written like an advertisement. I have re-read this article several times. It is completely neutral and entirely factual. With that said, please identify what you believe to be inaccurate.
Its listing on other pages are equally accurate and non biased. Once again much more so than WOTC, or many of the other sites in this vain. Granted, prior posts in my view to were perhaps in a more commerical vein but it all seems rather objective now. So again, show me the sentence that seems like something other than simple fact and I'll correct it or ask one of the Ravenchase folks to do so if they will.
If I was a betting man, I'd bet that 90%+ of the WOTC Wikipedia page was written by non-WOTC employees who have little to no close connection to the company. In fact I'd say that about most companies on Wikipedia. That's how reference materials are written; it's hard to be neutral if you're closely connected. If I was a betting man, I'd bet that 90%+ of the Ravenchase entry was written by someone with a close relationship to the company. 12.105.229.197 05:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
And you would be quite incorrect (and have once again failed to answer the basic questions). I have played two ravenchase games, as well as several of the games in San Fran, LA and several puzzle hunts in Manhattan. I have written the page, because I think its a very interesting concept. So again, what is non -neutral?
Oh, pardon me, the "Krinklefoot" who is clearly trusted enough by (or is part of) Ravenchase to run a preclue on his/her blog must be a DIFFERENT Krinklefoot than the individual who wrote this article. Clearly two different Krinklefoots, one of whom is Ravenchase-affiliated and one of whom is a completely different neutral party. And probably yet a completely different third person is the one who immediately deletes any criticism on the page when it appears, because criticism has no place in an encyclopedic reference, even criticism and commentary on a popular blog by a well-known and long-standing leader in the Game community (hardly, I might add, anything like you characterized him: "an unknown blogger with no basis of reference and appears biased"). I'm sure it was a fourth person who has been spamming Ravenchase links on Wikipedia inappropriately over the last two years. You will of course forgive my confusion in this matter. 12.105.229.197 06:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
New person adding to discussion here-- Long-standing leader in the game community, I may not be, but I know sound of a grinding ax. "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." Policing a small reference article for two years sounds personal. A Wiki reader could (perhaps mistakenly) assume that the policeman or woman is simply an angry competitor hiding behind an anonymous ip address.
Separate emotion and personal feelings and utilize logic. Arguing with someone about posted factual information is not logical. What is currently written on this page is a series of facts. Facts are indeed neutral. There are lots of factual articles in Wikipedia about companies. Do we get rid of them too? Size of the company and whether they are in business to make a profit or not make a profit makes no difference. There are many examples of both in Wikipedia. It's all a part of history. Communities are impacted by entrepreneurial ideas. This is an article about an idea which turned into something that people are interested in learning more about. So long facts are presented and they are correct, there should be no problem.
There are really only two pertinent issues here regarding whether this entry should exist: whether this entry is notable and whether the content is appropriate. Notability of an entry is defined by Wikipedia policy as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While there are already several links to articles on the entry itself, I will leave it others to handle this research and discussion. As for content, anything that is NPOV and verifiable via a reliable (and attributable source) is acceptable. Arguments about what should appear on the "treasure hunting (marine)" entry belong on the talk page for that entry - they have no bearing on whether this entry falls within Wikipedia guidelines. 171.161.224.10 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
