Factual errors/inconsistencies in the Civilopedia

[padillah]

Originally posted by Son of David
The church of the nativity/Christianity entry talks about how God gave his 'only son' up to humanity.

Notice how the Jew-bashers are quick to ignore this little nugget of 'pious stupidity'.

The diffrence is, within the context of "Christianity" this is a perfectly acceptable "fact".

No one is arguing if Mohammed was a "real" prophet. Or if Jesus really lived or not (still a valid question for most historians).

We are validating the articles in there given context.

Heck, there's even contention at Confucianism being called a religion, because it's not. BUT, in the context of it being "a religion" the article still has some faults.

I just wish there were an online source so I could come up with better examples.

Sorry about that.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Prussia
Come on, people, you have to give Firaxis some credit, I mean they WERE making a multi-million dollar video game with such high expectations, imagine all that research they had to do BEFORE they could start animation and good stuff like that. It's reasonable that they'd just throw in some random facts, isn't it?

No, not really.

One of the things that is highly touted in several articles is how Civ is advancing the "Learning while playing" in video games.

Now, I wouldn't call it a cornerstone of the game but they have heard us complain about the Civilopedia every step of the way, what makes them think we are going to give it a pass this time?

Yes, in defference to getting the game working, the 'pedia comes second. But to think we are going to be so blown away by the game that we forget there's a Civilopedia? They know better.

Tom P.

[Virtual Alex]

Wikipedia is an online source that has everything.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Virtual Alex
Wikipedia is an online source that has everything.

Yep. Every error, mistake, generalisation, and stereotype you need can be found there.

Evven Wiki admits the "everyone can edit regardless of there knowlege bsae" idea is not good in a great many circumstances.

Tom P.

[Prussia]

Originally posted by padillah
"everyone can edit regardless of there knowlege bsae"

It's even spelled that way because I edited it.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Prussia


It's even spelled that way because I edited it.

Case in point

[Solver]

Let's not turn this into a thread about Wikipedia's credibility...

[padillah]

Wow, as innocuous as the title sounds this thread has gotten two warnings already.

[Trying desperatly to think of something on topic... Oh yeah.]

It's a good thing the 'pedia is externalised so we can correct what we want.

Tom P.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by Solver

I do find this somewhat funny, given how most "facts" known about religion are indeed based on the relevant religious scripture(s) and not historical evidence.

It depends on your position regarding the religion. Think of it as "Star Wars." Within the Star Wars canon it is still disputed how many death stars were built. Outside the canon this has no significance. Within it, it is of great importance and aggressively debated.

If religion is a very complex story on which many of us base our understandings of existence itself--which is not an exclusively agnostic viewpoint; many religious persons take this view of their faith--then it is literally immaterial whether anything in scripture can be empirically verified.

That would be like looking archeological evidence of the death star.

In my view, if you've every read something and felt it change your relationship with existence then you have experienced religion. More accurately, you have known Truth.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by drsparnum

Are universal suffrage and republic completely distinct entities? They are in civ. They are not in real life.

The United Kingdom, Thailand, Sweden, etc. all have universal suffrage under monarchies. Iran practices partial suffrage ("Representation" a la Civ4) under a theocracy.

[Prussia]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan


It depends on your position regarding the religion. Think of it as "Star Wars." Within the Star Wars canon it is still disputed how many death stars were built. Outside the canon this has no significance.

Trust me, it could be inside, or outside of the canon, and I still wouldn't care how many death stars were built.

[iapetus556]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan


The United Kingdom, Thailand, Sweden, etc. all have universal suffrage under monarchies. Iran practices partial suffrage ("Representation" a la Civ4) under a theocracy.

I've been thinking that this might be best solved by having an extra set of "Miscillaneous" civics, that are not exclusive of each other (but may exclude or require other civics).

"Universal sufferage" could be a misc civic that requires Representation to be in use, and which increases the benefits (and penalties) of Universal Sufferage.

Theocracy should be changed to a "Government" civic, because its really about how the government is run, and should require you to be using Organised Religion. (How can you have a theocracy without organised religion?)

You could have other, interesting Misc civics as well. (An "Armed society" civic could be interesting, that allows unguarded cities to defend themselves against invaders, and makes them more likely to flip back to you if they do get captured, but also much more likely to flip away from you if there are a lot of Unhappy people in them).

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by iapetus556
"Universal sufferage" could be a misc civic that requires Representation to be in use, and which increases the benefits (and penalties) of Universal Sufferage.

I like this idea, makes a lot of sense.

Theocracy should be changed to a "Government" civic, because its really about how the government is run, and should require you to be using Organised Religion. (How can you have a theocracy without organised religion?)

The description of the Organized Religion civic in the Civilopedia indicates that it represents a situation where there is an economically and politically powerful religious organization that is separate from the government, much like the Catholic Church in most of medieval Europe - the Church had a lot of power, but was not in total control of the government and rulers often went against the Pope's wishes. Theocracy is when the church and the government are one and the same. The name is a little misleading, but it makes sense.

You could have other, interesting Misc civics as well. (An "Armed society" civic could be interesting, that allows unguarded cities to defend themselves against invaders, and makes them more likely to flip back to you if they do get captured, but also much more likely to flip away from you if there are a lot of Unhappy people in them).

I like this idea too.