The TF Wiki

[blackie]

usefull for most things

I find the site informative and the captions hilarious hehe

uncyclopedia still wins in my books

[GoktimusPrime]

Okay, I'm just gonna get this off my chest - here's what I dislike about TFwiki...

(i) The attempted humour is just not necessary. This is supposed to be a fan-maintained encyclopedia - it ought to be informative and factual, which it does achieve to some degree, but it's not meant to try and be entertaining. It's almost like TFwiki is trying to be the class clown all the time. I would much prefer it if it stuck to the facts and the captions were actually descriptive of what was being displayed in the images. And this is what you tend to get on a regular/normal wikia and other resource sites. I don't expect to look up a Dugong on wikipedia and see a caption mocking its reputation as the "ugliest animal in the world." All the try-hard humour just makes TFwiki look horrifically unprofessional. I can't take a wikia seriously when it doesn't seem to take itself seriously. It's like a teacher coming to class in a freakin' clown suit. (-_-) What is this, Patch Adams?

(ii) Many pages in TF wiki are loaded with personal opinionated bias. A true informative resource should be neutral/impartial and devoid of bias. The KISS Play page is a good example of this - it raves on about how KISS play is for pedophiles and how it's sexually perverted etc., then the page about the artist for KISS Play suggests that he's a pervert etc. (which is kinda like public defamation too). I'm not saying that KISS Play is or isn't perverted - that's a matter of personal opinion/perception... a kind of opinion which doesn't belong on TFwiki. And this is just one of many, many examples of personal bias.

(iii) There's a lot of information of TFwiki which is either incorrect or not entirely accurate and just missing. Afaik there's no TFwiki entry on Ono Kojin (Ōno Kōjin), who is the Takara toy designer who designed most G1 and G2 Transformers. All those G1 TFs you loved as a kid... he designed most of those.

(iv) "Why don't you edit it?" - yeah, I tried doing that when TFwiki first came out, but I found that most of my edits got re-edited so that the things I tried to change were unchanged (e.g.: trying to remove bias, forced humour, information accuracy etc). After that I just plain gave up all hope on TFwiki.

I only refer to TFwiki for things I cannot find anywhere else... which fortunately for me at least isn't much since I store lots of TF knowledge in my noggin' (the joys of being a walking TF encyclopedia )

[kup]

(iv) "Why don't you edit it?" - yeah, I tried doing that when TFwiki first came out, but I found that most of my edits got re-edited so that the things I tried to change were unchanged (e.g.: trying to remove bias, forced humour, information accuracy etc). After that I just plain gave up all hope on TFwiki.

I only refer to TFwiki for things I cannot find anywhere else... which fortunately for me at least isn't much since I store lots of TF knowledge in my noggin' (the joys of being a walking TF encyclopedia )

I can relate to that strongly. I tried to get involved in the spirit of contribution about a year ago but it seems that the 'owners' of the wiki articles do not like others adding to their pages. No reason given to why additions were removed, it just seemed that they didn't want to let others play without permission negating the whole point of the wiki.

Every change not made by the circle of 'frequent contributors' is either automatically deleted or the casual author has to 'fight' for the changes or additions he/she makes. It doesn't matter if the addition adds constructively to the page or not, it is automatically deleted without explanation.

Due to this I have found the wiki only good for finding stuff about fictional information such as Marvel comics/character stories. Anything else that is based in the real world such as toy lines, product history, etc I take it with a grain of salt.

At the end I have found it to be a resource of sorts but not one I can trust to be correct/unbiased.

[TheDirtyDigger]

Okay, I'm just gonna get this off my chest - here's what I dislike about TFwiki...

(i) The attempted humour is just not necessary. This is supposed to be a fan-maintained encyclopedia - it ought to be informative and factual, which it does achieve to some degree, but it's not meant to try and be entertaining. It's almost like TFwiki is trying to be the class clown all the time. I would much prefer it if it stuck to the facts and the captions were actually descriptive of what was being displayed in the images. And this is what you tend to get on a regular/normal wikia and other resource sites. I don't expect to look up a Dugong on wikipedia and see a caption mocking its reputation as the "ugliest animal in the world." All the try-hard humour just makes TFwiki look horrifically unprofessional. I can't take a wikia seriously when it doesn't seem to take itself seriously. It's like a teacher coming to class in a freakin' clown suit. (-_-) What is this, Patch Adams?

I can understand the point you're making there but I would say (and this is totally an estimation) that they are catering to the majority of folk who enjoy the humour. I personally find myself smiling or even giggling girlishly to some of the caption comments and I see most anything that makes me happy as a positive thing. That said, I'm not someone who takes the TF canon too seriously.

(ii) Many pages in TF wiki are loaded with personal opinionated bias. A true informative resource should be neutral/impartial and devoid of bias. The KISS Play page is a good example of this - it raves on about how KISS play is for pedophiles and how it's sexually perverted etc., then the page about the artist for KISS Play suggests that he's a pervert etc. (which is kinda like public defamation too). I'm not saying that KISS Play is or isn't perverted - that's a matter of personal opinion/perception... a kind of opinion which doesn't belong on TFwiki. And this is just one of many, many examples of personal bias.

I agree totally with 'A true informative resource should be neutral/impartial and devoid of bias' but it is more rare than common that we see this anywhere. Newspapers and journalism are filled with bias as are the standard articles in the Wikipedia, albeit much more subtly.

(iii) There's a lot of information of TFwiki which is either incorrect or not entirely accurate and just missing. Afaik there's no TFwiki entry on Ono Kojin (Ōno Kōjin), who is the Takara toy designer who designed most G1 and G2 Transformers. All those G1 TFs you loved as a kid... he designed most of those.

(iv) "Why don't you edit it?" - yeah, I tried doing that when TFwiki first came out, but I found that most of my edits got re-edited so that the things I tried to change were unchanged (e.g.: trying to remove bias, forced humour, information accuracy etc). After that I just plain gave up all hope on TFwiki.

I can relate to that strongly. I tried to get involved in the spirit of contribution about a year ago but it seems that the 'owners' of the wiki articles do not like others adding to their pages. No reason given to why additions were removed, it just seemed that they didn't want to let others play without permission negating the whole point of the wiki.

Every change not made by the circle of 'frequent contributors' is either automatically deleted or the casual author has to 'fight' for the changes or additions he/she makes. It doesn't matter if the addition adds constructively to the page or not, it is automatically deleted without explanation.

Kup...can we ask FFN why this is so? Hang on...I'll do it.

FFN...can you elaborate on this point for our benefit please?

Gok...If you produced an entry on Ono Kojin would they delete it?
As for editing the TFwiki I saw a couple of Shortpacked comics on two guys who keep re-editing each others entries. With such a strongly loved franchise with so many obsessive fanatics, fights over who's right or not are sure to crop up often.
Who has final say over what goes in or out?
How do we become this all powerful figure?

I only refer to TFwiki for things I cannot find anywhere else... which fortunately for me at least isn't much since I store lots of TF knowledge in my noggin' (the joys of being a walking TF encyclopedia )

Aha...if only I had a Gokbot with your knowledge firmly imprinted on it's hard drive next to me every time I had a TF related query. Sadly I don't so I'll have to rely on TFwiki and our forums for such.

[GoktimusPrime]

I can understand the point you're making there but I would say (and this is totally an estimation) that they are catering to the majority of folk who enjoy the humour. I personally find myself smiling or even giggling girlishly to some of the caption comments and I see most anything that makes me happy as a positive thing. That said, I'm not someone who takes the TF canon too seriously.

I like some of the humorous captions too... but just because it's funny doesn't mean that it's appropriate. Imagine if a news reporter were to describe Corey Delaney as a <Richard>-head. I would find it both funny and I would agree with the sentiment... but at the same time it would be grossly inappropriate to say something like that in a news report when you're supposed to be just presenting facts. It's not an issue of "is it funny?" but an issue of appropriateness. There's a time and place for humour and making a so-called Transformers encyclopedia just isn't one of them. It's almost as if TFwiki is trying to be both a TF wikipedia and uncyclopedia at the same time (which mixes as well as oil and water).

I agree totally with 'A true informative resource should be neutral/impartial and devoid of bias' but it is more rare than common that we see this anywhere. Newspapers and journalism are filled with bias as are the standard articles in the Wikipedia, albeit much more subtly.

That is true, but ten wrongs don't make a right. As I've mentioned on other threads, I dislike Wikipedia in general due to its open source nature - the fact that any schmuck can come and edit them. It's totally different from an actual encyclopedia or proper resource book/site where they are published by qualified experts. And as you've said, the bias is a lot more subtle on other wikis. TF wiki is by far the worst wikia I have ever come across in terms of blatant open bias and inappropriate use of humour. You look at any other wikia - Star Wars, Harry Potter, Dr. Who, G.I. Joe etc. (and of course, wikipedia), none of them have the kind of open bias and try-hard humour that TF wiki has.

Gok...If you produced an entry on Ono Kojin would they delete it?

Don't really know or care tbh... like I said, I've long given up hope on wikis, and especially Transformers wiki. There's an article on Ono Kojin on Wikipedia (here) which has basic information about his work on Microman, Diaclone and Transformers G1 (though nothing about his post-TF work). There's also a link to my English translation of the Transformers Generations interview with Ono.

I often tell my students to beware of Wikipedia and wikis and that if they are going to use a wiki as a source of information, to make sure that it can be backed up by at least two other separate sources. I would only recommend TFwiki as a final resort - i.e. if you cannot find the information anywhere else, and I will admit that TFwiki does contain some information which cannot be easily found anywhere else and it's good for that. But overall I am very unimpressed with it as a TF resource.

[kup]

I often tell my students to beware of Wikipedia and wikis and that if they are going to use a wiki as a source of information, to make sure that it can be backed up by at least two other separate sources. I would only recommend TFwiki as a final resort - i.e. if you cannot find the information anywhere else, and I will admit that TFwiki does contain some information which cannot be easily found anywhere else and it's good for that. But overall I am very unimpressed with it as a TF resource.

That is good advice and not just for the TF wiki but wikis in general. They are afterall public edited articles and as a result each has their own quirks, attitudes and culture just like any other community. I have found that wikis are only good for absolute 'Black or white' facts such as 'When was such a toy released' or 'What date did WWII end', stuff like that. Anything that requires opinion or observation of sorts I cross reference unless they have included a concrete third party source stated in the article.

[Paulbot]

I've never gone back and checked changes I've made are still there.

I can understand people reverting edits if you're taking our their jokes etc and spoiling their fun, but if you're adding valid updates and they are still being removed that's really bad form.

[GoktimusPrime]

I find the use of jokes etc. to be bad form too in the context of a wikia. Could you imagine looking up Dugong on Encyclopedia Britannica and seeing an image with the caption "@$$face"? Sure, that would be funny but terribly inappropriate in that context/situation. Not even Star Wars Wikia refers to Ponda Baba or any other Aqualish in that way... as hilarious as it may be.

Bumfaces ftw

[kup]

I've never gone back and checked changes I've made are still there.

I can understand people reverting edits if you're taking our their jokes etc and spoiling their fun, but if you're adding valid updates and they are still being removed that's really bad form.

I don't have as much of an issue with the jokes. My issue is when I try to add (as in not changing) to an article and my addition is deleted without any explanation whatsoever. My only successful contribution to the wiki was a single line that I had to fight for, I don't mind discussion and someone making comments on the validity of my addition but someone just coming along and deleting stuff without explanation is what I am complaining about. I only got feedback on why my line was deleted after I demanded one and even so the response was "I never heard of this so it must be wrong". At the end I managed to maintain my wiki addition but the attitude I encountered while doing so was something I did not appreciate. The attitude read as someone who is either over protective and defensive of the existing content or doesn't allow anyone else but 'the trusted circle' to edit it.

If there is disagreement about a change or addition, that is cool and fine, deleting without any explanation is not.

I am not really all that concerned with the wiki, I gave up on it ages ago as a fan wide community project, I just wanted to voice my concerns. After all, in these sorts of projects, criticism should be welcomed not rejected.

[FFN]

On the subject of tone, I don't think Transformers is not really a topic deserving of scholarly study and contemplation. It's a toyline for kids and cartoons and comics to promote the toys or the brand, and we treat it as such. Thus we then have fun with our hobby and not take it too seriously.

For bias and tone, I think Pablo Hidalgo, content manager Lucasfilm's websites, said it best:

There are plenty of reasons as a TransFan to dig it, but what I particularly like is its absolute disregard to neutral voice. It never pretends to be anything officials and in fact, gets a bit bawdy in some of its language - especially its often-hilarious captions ... It's got the perfect mix of retentive detail and irreverence.

As for 'lifting our standards' to be like other wikis, we don't want to emulate the Wikipedia or be like other wikis. In my opinion, that's what makes us stand out and makes us unique.


I question the accusations of us refusing to accept edits that are more factually accurate than what we already have (so long as it doesn't conflict with our tone and our style guide). Give us proof and whatever edits you contribute will be left alone or reworked to fit our articles.

As for captions not being Wikipedia-style captions or not being descriptive of what is occurring, well, click on the image itself and there should be a description along with (hopefully) credits for the artists and writers involved if it's a comic panel.