Forum - View topicANN Often Cited as Reference at Wikipedia
|
|
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
||
|
Okay, I use (English) Wikipedia a lot. It is a great tool, and I love the concept to bits. Naturally since I am an Anime fan, I peruse the Wikipedia pages of quite a number Anime. And I've noticed an interesting thing; Anime News Network is usually listed under the "References" heading. The reason why I am only now asking about it is because of the Rideback page, which lists ANN four times as a reference. Four isn't a large number of references for a particular page by any means, but it did spur me to post here. I mean, why ANN and not other English-language websites?
So my main question is, when it comes to Anime on English Wikipedia, why is ANN so often referenced compared to other websites? I had always gotten the feeling that a significant number of ANN users thought of Wikipedia as unreliable. Or, at least to be taken with a grain of salt. Now, I realise that the users of ANN do not speak for ANN itself, but it does seem strange to me to see ANN being so prominently featured. Especially at a site not known (or not thought of) for being entirely reliable. Does the responsibility lie with the staff at ANN submitting information? Is it the result of ANN users being more enthusiastic with Wikipedia than I believe, and submitting the information themselves? Or is it simply the result of ANN's efforts to become, as the banner proudly exclaims, "The Internet's Most Trusted Anime News Source"? I'm not attacking ANN, far from it. It is my curiosity that drives my questioning. If indeed the staff here at ANN do submit information, well I don't mind. The way Wikipedia works, I suspect that ANN wouldn't get away with being so prolific in terms of referencing unless it always had worthwhile information to include. So could a staff member please shed some light on this? And hey, if it is indeed the result of ANN's reputation, this is a fine opportunity to brag about it a little. You're allowed to brag, right? Thanks. |
|||
|
|||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 7583 Location: Wales |
|
||
|
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_29#Monopoly_of_ANN_info_links_-_why_not_others.3F for some discussion on this.
|
|||
|
|||
Kimiko_0
 Posts: 1796 Location: Leiden, NL, EU |
|
||
|
So, why doesn't the ANN encyclopedia have links back to Wikipedia articles on the various anime? It would be a very useful feature I think.
|
|||
|
|||
|
fighterholic
Posts: 9193 |
|
||
|
I think that assuming that ANN staff are submitting information to Wikipedia just to get ANN some notice is a farcry. They spend so much time here and between what jobs they work in real life that they could probably care less about what is on Wikipedia. If anything it is Wikipedia users that submit the information, but ANN has become one of the biggest sources for anime. You curious about what other roles a VA might have had? ANN. How many volumes in a series right now? ANN. It's become a lot more common than you might think. I do not believe at all that the staff here would just put references to ANN through Wikipedia just to get it some notice.
|
|||
|
|||
Dorcas_Aurelia
 Posts: 5344 Location: Philly |
|
||
|
I'd imagine it has quite a bit to do with ANN being comprehensive and reliable. It's easier to find information if it's all in one place, and if that one place is known for making an effort to ensure that the information is correct, bonus.
|
|||
|
|||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
||
|
Regardless of whose intention it was to use ANN as a source, it was in fact through Wikipedia references that I became aware of this place. I'd fathom I'm not the only one to have done so.
|
|||
|
|||
braves
 Posts: 2309 Location: Puerto Rico (but living in Texas) |
|
||
I don't think that would be pretty good. It would pretty much create a circle (figuratively speaking) when it comes to citing sources between the 2 sites, giving both sites low credibility (IMO anyways). |
|||
|
|||
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
||
Thanks for the link. It answers the "why", but what about the "who"? Though I did see that your ANN username is also your Wikipedia username, so that could be a start. Cheers. |
|||
|
|||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
||
It looks like that you have not been here long enough to have had witnessed the biggest hoaxed "anime" on Wikipedia by far. Even ANN is not 100% error free, and that speaks for how "reliable" Wikipedia is. I've personally corrected a few anime/manga-related issues on Wikipedia, but that's all. |
|||
|
|||
britannicamoore
 Posts: 2618 Location: Out. |
|
||
After reading that and feeling like the girl in question needed to speak to a psychiatrist, I agree. No wiki articles. This is offtopic but I really want to see that wiki page for Doonys. |
|||
|
|||
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
||
|
Thanks dormcat. Looking at the thread that you linked to, I see that there a few ANN users who do regularly edit Wikipedia. So I suppose that helps to answer the "who" question.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 7583 Location: Wales |
|
||
It hasn't survived very well, but there is one version of it stored in the web archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060913000000/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doonys Only an admin can pull up the later revisions of the delted page, but there's some surviving information on the saga here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rocket-Purse |
|||
|
|||
Sethimothy
 Posts: 121 |
|
||
This. Also, the contributors of ANN are predominantly staff, which gives the site much more credibility than even Wikipedia itself, the self-proclaimed editors of which aren't known beyond screen names and the house style of which is continuously wavering. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group