Welcome!
Sign up to remove the advertisements.
Archived: Rumored Shut downs
(Page 2 out of 3):
1,
2,
3
Re: Re: Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/27/11 3:38 pm | #16
Quote by Taco:
Quote by AJ:
I wouldn't call anything on wikipedia 'pure evidence' seeing as how anyone can go in and make a change.
But I don't see this happening. I am getting rid of Black Ops when I go to gamestop next, though. So if it did happen, it wouldn't bother me.
you realize wikipedia has thousands of workers constantly checking info to make sure its correct and factual, right? so you cant just be like "oh, you can edit it, so it musnt be true!" when they have people whos job it is to make sure its true/correct. also, this is about a video game. why WOULDNT it be correct?
There are so many entries on wikipedia no amount of people who work there could be checking EVERY single entry and making sure it's up to date. I know you're still in high school and research papers are probably just being introduced, but when you get to college your school might tell you why that site is almost worthless.
One of my professors even showed his class real time how you can make changes to anything on wikipedia.
I'm not saying everything on wikipedia is wrong, but ANYONE can make changes at any time. And yes, RDR is not Activision so they can't do shit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/27/11 3:41 pm | #17
Quote by AJ:
Quote by Taco:
you realize wikipedia has thousands of workers constantly checking info to make sure its correct and factual, right? so you cant just be like "oh, you can edit it, so it musnt be true!" when they have people whos job it is to make sure its true/correct. also, this is about a video game. why WOULDNT it be correct?
There are so many entries on wikipedia no amount of people who work there could be checking EVERY single entry and making sure it's up to date. I know you're still in high school and research papers are probably just being introduced, but when you get to college your school might tell you why that site is almost worthless.
One of my professors even showed his class real time how you can make changes to anything on wikipedia.
I'm not saying everything on wikipedia is wrong, but ANYONE can make changes at any time. And yes, RDR is not Activision so they can't do shit.
well no, of course they cant check EVERY entry. but they can see any and everytime you make a change and make sure its correct. besides that, who the fuck just goes to a video games page and changes the developer/publisher? thats just fucking stupid...
also, ive been doing research papers since middle school. weve never been able to use wiki. and ive made plent of changes to wiki, most of which were fixing an error or further explaining something that asked for it. so i know you can change things, ive done it.
and i dont understand the point of the first comment (saying wiki isnt factual proof) when your last comment there just restates what i said in the first place -.-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/27/11 3:45 pm | #18
Quote by Taco:
Quote by AJ:
There are so many entries on wikipedia no amount of people who work there could be checking EVERY single entry and making sure it's up to date. I know you're still in high school and research papers are probably just being introduced, but when you get to college your school might tell you why that site is almost worthless.
One of my professors even showed his class real time how you can make changes to anything on wikipedia.
I'm not saying everything on wikipedia is wrong, but ANYONE can make changes at any time. And yes, RDR is not Activision so they can't do shit.
well no, of course they cant check EVERY entry. but they can see any and everytime you make a change and make sure its correct. besides that, who the fuck just goes to a video games page and changes the developer/publisher? thats just fucking stupid...
also, ive been doing research papers since middle school. weve never been able to use wiki. and ive made plent of changes to wiki, most of which were fixing an error or further explaining something that asked for it. so i know you can change things, ive done it.
and i dont understand the point of the first comment (saying wiki isnt factual proof) when your last comment there just restates what i said in the first place -.-
If there's a part of wikipedia that is wrong, how could any of it be considered 'factual'. When it's accepted as 'factual' it will be used by everyone, colleges, news, advertisements (like an encyclopedia, that's 'factual'). If something isn't 100% credible then why should anyone believe anything from that source? The only time I ever hear of people using wikipedia is to check hearsay anyways, which was probably wrong in the first place, as we just saw in this thread.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/27/11 3:48 pm | #19
Quote by AJ:
Quote by Taco:
well no, of course they cant check EVERY entry. but they can see any and everytime you make a change and make sure its correct. besides that, who the fuck just goes to a video games page and changes the developer/publisher? thats just fucking stupid...
also, ive been doing research papers since middle school. weve never been able to use wiki. and ive made plent of changes to wiki, most of which were fixing an error or further explaining something that asked for it. so i know you can change things, ive done it.
and i dont understand the point of the first comment (saying wiki isnt factual proof) when your last comment there just restates what i said in the first place -.-
If there's a part of wikipedia that is wrong, how could any of it be considered 'factual'. When it's accepted as 'factual' it will be used by everyone, colleges, news, advertisements (like an encyclopedia, that's 'factual'). If something isn't 100% credible then why should anyone believe anything from that source? The only time I ever hear of people using wikipedia is to check hearsay anyways, which was probably wrong in the first place, as we just saw in this thread.
ive never said it was 100% factual. its just mostly factual. i mean you cant take EVERYTHING as truth, you have to have some common sense w/ some things...but for the most part, especially when it comes to info on vid games/movies/etc, its pretty much 98% factual...ive yet to find a part where its been wrong on something like a game/movie..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/27/11 4:01 pm | #20
Quote by Taco:
Quote by AJ:
If there's a part of wikipedia that is wrong, how could any of it be considered 'factual'. When it's accepted as 'factual' it will be used by everyone, colleges, news, advertisements (like an encyclopedia, that's 'factual'). If something isn't 100% credible then why should anyone believe anything from that source? The only time I ever hear of people using wikipedia is to check hearsay anyways, which was probably wrong in the first place, as we just saw in this thread.
ive never said it was 100% factual. its just mostly factual. i mean you cant take EVERYTHING as truth, you have to have some common sense w/ some things...but for the most part, especially when it comes to info on vid games/movies/etc, its pretty much 98% factual...ive yet to find a part where its been wrong on something like a game/movie..
Well, with your number of 98% of things being correct: the English Wikipedia has 3,564,000+ entires, with only 2% being wrong that's 71,280 entries that are wrong. I would bet that there are a lot more than that too. Obviously it would be almost impossible to say the percentage of entries wrong on wikipedia.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/27/11 5:24 pm | #21
Quote by AJ:
Quote by Taco:
ive never said it was 100% factual. its just mostly factual. i mean you cant take EVERYTHING as truth, you have to have some common sense w/ some things...but for the most part, especially when it comes to info on vid games/movies/etc, its pretty much 98% factual...ive yet to find a part where its been wrong on something like a game/movie..
Well, with your number of 98% of things being correct: the English Wikipedia has 3,564,000+ entires, with only 2% being wrong that's 71,280 entries that are wrong. I would bet that there are a lot more than that too. Obviously it would be almost impossible to say the percentage of entries wrong on wikipedia.
well aj, 83% of statistics are made up on the spot...98% was just an example...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/27/11 6:21 pm | #23
Quote by Taco:
Quote by AJ:
Well, with your number of 98% of things being correct: the English Wikipedia has 3,564,000+ entires, with only 2% being wrong that's 71,280 entries that are wrong. I would bet that there are a lot more than that too. Obviously it would be almost impossible to say the percentage of entries wrong on wikipedia.
well aj, 83% of statistics are made up on the spot...98% was just an example...
You're right, it's probably more like 80% of stuff on wikipedia is wrong! 
Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/27/11 8:30 pm | #26
Wait...so does RDR have times 3 xp right meow?
Re: Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/27/11 10:17 pm | #27
Quote by Bovice63:
Wait...so does RDR have times 3 xp right meow?
Settle down meow. There is 3xp for RDR right meow.
Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/28/11 9:48 am | #28
I have never played either game, but I think the dev's should have used a system similar to Gears, where you have a 'host' system, not a server system.
Re: Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/28/11 3:41 pm | #29
Quote by Mo the Surfer:
I have never played either game, but I think the dev's should have used a system similar to Gears, where you have a 'host' system, not a server system.
p2p is kinda better, but kinda not. i like dedicated servers, because if you lag its because you have a shitty internet connection and so its nobodys fault but yourselves. but at the same time, p2p is cheaper for companies to use for the MP. its not necessarily better, because if the hosts connection sucks everybody else will suck because of it, but it is cheaper for a company to have. so its good and bad
also, they SHOULDNT do it like gows host system. you got host, you became god
Re: Rumored Shut downs
02/28/11 3:49 pm | #30
if it's not 100% then it turns from factual to theory.
(Page 2 out of 3):
1,
2,
3
