I just edited the 5200 article on Wikipedia

[Retro Rogue]

For example, a couple months ago I was reading their article on the video game crash, curious to see what it would say. For the most part, I found it to be a very good article, and knew it had to have undergone a lot of work, so I went to the dicussion page to see what was going on 'behind the scenes'. One guy was complaing about some edits he made that were being removed and the others were talking to him about it. It was a pretty civil conversation, but the main thrust of why the edit was done was that the guy was making a Original Research argument.

 

Where was that on the talk page? I tried looking over there because I'm interested in reading what he had to say, and I don't see anything like that other than a 2012 crash prediction thread. And some French guy there behaving like a twit stating it all boils down to Pac-Man and E.T.

 

The point is, trying to do anything for Wiki is a real pain in the ass and anyone who bothers has my respect and admiration of sticking through it and making it a better resource then it allready is.

 

Thanks, been doing it for 5 years. Started up the Atari tsak force there as well (which everyone is welcome to join), and have helped to come up with several guidelines in the video game project as well to help organize things. Along the way I've been able to helps save a few articles that were nominated for deletion, including AtariAge's.

[SoulBlazer]

Where was that on the talk page? I tried looking over there because I'm interested in reading what he had to say, and I don't see anything like that other than a 2012 crash prediction thread. And some French guy there behaving like a twit stating it all boils down to Pac-Man and E.T.

 

Sorry wgungfu. I hadn't been over there in a while, as I said. I just looked and it was moved to the Archives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983/Archive_1

 

The discussion is broken up into two parts. It starts at "Back to the issue" and continues with "The ten steps". The first part has the step by step argument I was talking about, the second part is where someone argues it was original research. Both parts are toward the bottom.

 

Odly, though, I can't find my comment here. Perhaps my computer didn't send it? Oh well.

 

Coll7 was the one who made the argument and Blaxthos was saying it was Original Research, even though he agreeded with it, and that it needs to be published by a 'reliable source'.

 

And wow, that's from December 2006. I didn't realize it was that old.

[jetset]

I bet there's some blatantly rude-type shit going on in Wikipedia with editing being so easy...wasn't there a post here about someone editing a nintendo page liking them to Al Queda? I wonder just how often the editing back and forth over and over on certain topics, like political/conspiracy theory stuff.

[Divya16]

I should edit the Atari 5200 article so that it came out before Atari 2600.