PMOG Forum

1) Take the time to send a pmail to the people whose missions you are taking and give them feedback to this effect - they only way they'll learn not to do this is if someone tells them.

2) Take missions that have been highly rated and have been taken by numerous people. These are (in most cases) the prime mission makers on PMOG who come up with interesting, entertaining, and more importantly, well-thought out missions that avoid PMOG and wikipedia when possible.

As for wiki accuracy, I find about 90% of what I see there turns out to be accurate. If it's a subject where I seem to know more accurately than what's written, I'll take the time to correct the entry. I wouldn't use it to write a paper, but as a place to get 80% up to speed on a subject in less than 5 minutes time, it can't be beat. If you find yourself wanting to know more, it's time to do some in depth research, including but not limited to a search for journal publications on the topic, other resource media, websites for various advocacy groups on the topic, etc.

by rossruns 9 months ago
| Permalink

If I find a good Wiki article, I tend to check the links that it uses for background--those are the raw sites, usually full of pictures and other things that are good in missions.

P.S. I do love the Wiki, and I find it to be spot-on for info the vast majority of the time. Those topics upon which I am qualified to comment are always correct, and if they aren't--they're damn close.

by pixielo 9 months ago
| Permalink

"I wouldn't use it to write a paper"
I would, and I do ;)

by aerozol 9 months ago
| Permalink

I do everything in my power to avoid linking to Wikipedia, and really, I find it quite easy. There's a wealth of information out there, on topics you wouldn't expect.

Sure, it's useful for getting an idea of where you want to go with a mission, but that's about it.

by the-nearest-exit 9 months ago
| Permalink

You use wikipedia to find information, but you should use the sources they cite to write any actual papers. It's still very useful.

I don't mind people using wikipedia in missions if it makes sense.

Also "Wiki" is not a synonym for wikipedia =P

by scarybug 9 months ago
| Permalink

For those who say you're citing other than wikipedia: In that case, you're not using Wikipedia to write your paper, you are using it to find your research sources.

Unless of course, you're actually just citing these other sources while using the information you glean off the Wikipedia page, in which case you're fraudulently citing sources [possibly out of context]. But I hope nobody would do this - I know of many instances where my teachers actually took the time and effort to do a random spot-check of citations to ensure that people weren't just making stuff up or citing other sources to flush out their annotated bibliography. It's got to be even easier in this day and age where over half the sources you cite are available online either as websites or scanned text.

by rossruns 9 months ago
| Permalink

Yes but wikipedia is still a tool to find the info, you read it to get a concise understanding, then go to the sources to verify the author wasn't making it up, and write the paper based on the source.

Of course, as a CS major, I only ever had to write 4 papers in college, and Wikipedia was still in its infancy then so I didn't use it.

by scarybug 9 months ago
| Permalink

Yes but wiki already means something. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that uses a wiki, but there are thousands of other wikis. I have a wiki at work that I use to document code.

I'm the first person to argue that we should let language evolve naturally, so long as it isn't dumb.

by scarybug 9 months ago
| Permalink