The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
how credible would you judge wikipedia to be? who can write there? is there any kind of check? who administers it? who's funding it? (always follow the money)
Afaik everyone can write there (or not?).....I like the idea of wiki, and I use it myself if I want quick info about something, but for important things I would rather use something else.....I saw people using it at the uni as reference - that I wouldn't do and wouldn't recommend.
Wikipedia's credibility? On a scale 1 to 10, probably about 2.
It's written by anyone interested in any particular subject. There's no check on the realibily of the information whatsoever, but anyone can overwrite any existing article, so if you don't agree with an article you just replace it with your own version (until someone comes around and replaces yours). For popular topics this means articles are sometimes of somewhat acceptable quality but especially for unpopular topics they typically represent the point of view of one individual and are no better than any random website (except that websites usually provide some meta information about the credibilty of the source, something which tends to be absent in wikipedia -- in fact, the very inclusion on wikipedia can create a false illusion of credibility).
As far as I can tell, it's pretty almost without exception being maintained by amateurs with no academic credentials of any kind. The only real use of articles on wikipedia is the links to the sources they quote (if any).
I've found this to be a somewhat amusing illustration of my point:
Whereas there are many topics that Wikipedia provides an excellent coverage of, and even more topics for which Wikipedia is an excellent source simply because of its ease of use and how all the information is there, in a single place. After all, things such as what Locutus posted do get removed very quickly.
Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man
Originally posted by paiktis22
how credible would you judge wikipedia to be? who can write there? is there any kind of check? who administers it? who's funding it? (always follow the money)
how would you rate its credibility in any case?
I doubt its credibility very much and pretty much discount any in-depth cites people make using it.
By "in-depth cites" I don't mean basic things like dates and such but explanation of causes.
There are maybe a handful of (mainstream) topics for which the coverage can be described as 'excellent', it really depends on the individuals making the contribution and the ability of the rest of the users to keep their filthy little fingers off those contributions. But this happens only very rarely in my experience. Plus, even if the explanantion is excellent in quality, it still doesn't really mean anything if it's not from any kind of credible source, which wikipedia by definition isn't because anyone could've written any of it.
Again, the only truely credible part of wikipedia is the links it provides, because those can be judged in their own right and can sometimes be both credible and relevant (keyword: sometimes). But even then you have no way of knowing if all relevant sources have been listed, it's still possible to create a bias by excluding certain sources from your list of references.
So all-in-all anyone looking for serious and credible information would be wise to avoid Wikipedia. There are many knowledge bases online, both generic and specific, that provide much more credible information of typically much better quality on the same topics that Wikipedia does. Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia and even MSN Encarta are all fine examples of generic online encyclopedias that are overall much better and certainly much more credible than Wikipedia.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Um, wouldn't the Catholic Encyclopedia be maintained by people who are biased in favor of the Church? To the extent that they might have unreliable information on some topics?
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Yes, but at least with the Catholic Encyclopedia you know it's maintained by Catholics (who might or might not biased in favor of the Church) so you can discount it accordingly. With Wiki you don't have the slightest idea who posted anything.
Tweet
Comment