apologies if this was already posted, cause i am too much of a noob here... ive searched for the topic but i didn't find it. so anyways, remember that wikipedia link to diablo 2? check again please.
An expansion to Diablo II, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, was released in 2001, and is now at version 1.11b. The idea of a third game in the series was broached when a Swedish journalist, speaking to a Blizzard producer, joked that he probably would be back to visit again "to check out Diablo III", and the producer, seeming to think said journalist knew about Diablo III, replied, "Yeah, I don't really know when that event's going to be", thus indicating that Diablo III was in the works.[2]
Apologies once more, and if you plan on bashing wikipedia, turn back. now.
also, pardon a 13 year old's idiocy
apologies if this was already posted, cause i am too much of a noob here... ive searched for the topic but i didn't find it. so anyways, remember that wikipedia link to diablo 2? check again please.
An expansion to Diablo II, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, was released in 2001, and is now at version 1.11b. The idea of a third game in the series was broached when a Swedish journalist, speaking to a Blizzard producer, joked that he probably would be back to visit again "to check out Diablo III", and the producer, seeming to think said journalist knew about Diablo III, replied, "Yeah, I don't really know when that event's going to be", thus indicating that Diablo III was in the works.[2]
Actually I think this is legit. I mean, seriously, it's a professional journalist and producer. Why would they lie to the public and ruin their reputation? Of course it's true, my hopes are really going up now. Also, it's been mentioned so much and stuff, it's gotta be true.
Not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
And, as you can see, it's not responding all that well. Perhaps it was deleted after that comment was read. And the Wiki note will probably get deleted, too.
To all Wikipedia hating idiots: if you want to know, Wikipedia pages sometimes have a reference to wherever they got the information (if they don't, probably a low-info page or a non-moderated page). If the source is credible, the reference is credible. If the source is not, like in this case, the reference isn't. But to say the whole entire Wikipedia is not credible or that it should be ignored when it right on tons upon tons of subjects is simply ignorant...
I am fucking tired of this. If you don't know how to use something, doesn't mean it's the service's fault...
And, as you can see, it's not responding all that well. Perhaps it was deleted after that comment was read. And the Wiki note will probably get deleted, too.
To all Wikipedia hating idiots: if you want to know, Wikipedia pages sometimes have a reference to wherever they got the information (if they don't, probably a low-info page or a non-moderated page). If the source is credible, the reference is credible. If the source is not, like in this case, the reference isn't. But to say the whole entire Wikipedia is not credible or that it should be ignored when it right on tons upon tons of subjects is simply ignorant...
I am fucking tired of this. If you don't know how to use something, doesn't mean it's the service's fault...
I sure hope you didn't imply me being an idiot, right ? ;] Or else you'd force me to link you the Wikki definition of Paranoia lmao...
Assuming people dunno how to read references is beyond ignorance.
My point simply was for people that arbitrarily think Wikki make these articles out of Heavens and therefore is true... well it's not; my problem comes from the fact that they do not verify these sources, therefore Wikki is no more than a subjective tool.
I sure hope you didn't imply me being an idiot, right ? ;]
I don't know. I said wikipedia hating idiots. E.g., most people that hate wikipedia are idiots.
Quote from name="Ϡ√) Ӭ Ḹ ι( Ỡ Ʀ" »
Or else you'd force me to link you the Wikki definition of Paranoia lmao...
I don't have a paranoia, I am just noticing the general tendency of people bashing wikipedia for not being something it was never intended to be. It reappears on this forum, so I am starting a jihad. It's what I do.
Quote from name="Ϡ√) Ӭ Ḹ ι( Ỡ Ʀ" »
Assuming people dunno how to read references is beyond ignorance.
How is that beyond ignorance? I have personal experience of explaining references to people who don't know about them (especially in school). And most people that hate Wikipedia are the people who don't know about references... or people who don't know what Wiki means. Or just people who complain about everything.
Quote from name="Ϡ√) Ӭ Ḹ ι( Ỡ Ʀ" »
well it's not; my problem comes from the fact that they do not verify these sources, therefore Wikki is no more than a subjective tool.
It's a WIKI. It is made to be filled by the people. Therefore, human error is to be taken into consideration. Some verify sources, some don't, some pages are moderated. If you know more than the author does, you can as well help out instead of sitting and complaining about it... If everything was moderated, we would just get another shallow encyclopedia. Wikipedia is only so large because it is filled by the people.
When it comes to general introductory information, wiki is priceless.
Well, the Document is getting bashed. and it's a bit strange how fans deny the possibility of a game coming out... so far wikipedia's reputation is going down the drain. even though it really shouldn't. i'll be tracing when this 'quote' (which everyone denies) was added
And, as you can see, it's not responding all that well. Perhaps it was deleted after that comment was read. And the Wiki note will probably get deleted, too.
To all Wikipedia hating idiots: if you want to know, Wikipedia pages sometimes have a reference to wherever they got the information (if they don't, probably a low-info page or a non-moderated page). If the source is credible, the reference is credible. If the source is not, like in this case, the reference isn't. But to say the whole entire Wikipedia is not credible or that it should be ignored when it right on tons upon tons of subjects is simply ignorant...
I am fucking tired of this. If you don't know how to use something, doesn't mean it's the service's fault...
Quoted for great justice. People need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize that the world does not revolve around them and their wants and needs.
Yeah I agree with Equinox on this one, just because some things on Wikipedia, aren't credible, doesn't mean the entire site sucks-ass. I use it all the time, it gives great info to any who want it. It's a great site, you are all just N00BS who can't use the website or better yet COMPREHEND it!!!!!!
And, as you can see, it's not responding all that well. Perhaps it was deleted after that comment was read. And the Wiki note will probably get deleted, too.
To all Wikipedia hating idiots: if you want to know, Wikipedia pages sometimes have a reference to wherever they got the information (if they don't, probably a low-info page or a non-moderated page). If the source is credible, the reference is credible. If the source is not, like in this case, the reference isn't. But to say the whole entire Wikipedia is not credible or that it should be ignored when it right on tons upon tons of subjects is simply ignorant...
I am fucking tired of this. If you don't know how to use something, doesn't mean it's the service's fault...
Yes.
Wikipedia is very credible actually. Since most of it is referenced.
Which other website does that?
Did anyone actually say that they hated Wikipedia? I don't recall anyone saying that.
Personally, I think it's a fantastic site, if I ever want to know the history of a band, game, company, religion etc. it's almost always the best place to start, but it is unreliable in many cases which is why when someone links a rumour to Diablo 3 citing wikipedia as their source, it doesn't really cut it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_2
this is the paragraph that blowed me off
An expansion to Diablo II, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, was released in 2001, and is now at version 1.11b. The idea of a third game in the series was broached when a Swedish journalist, speaking to a Blizzard producer, joked that he probably would be back to visit again "to check out Diablo III", and the producer, seeming to think said journalist knew about Diablo III, replied, "Yeah, I don't really know when that event's going to be", thus indicating that Diablo III was in the works.[2]
Apologies once more, and if you plan on bashing wikipedia, turn back. now.
also, pardon a 13 year old's idiocy
"And the Heavens shall tremble"
Not.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Chortle.
Why I'm mentioned in ED and not Wikki is pure conspiracy !
Same goes for every other articles ;]
And, as you can see, it's not responding all that well. Perhaps it was deleted after that comment was read. And the Wiki note will probably get deleted, too.
To all Wikipedia hating idiots: if you want to know, Wikipedia pages sometimes have a reference to wherever they got the information (if they don't, probably a low-info page or a non-moderated page). If the source is credible, the reference is credible. If the source is not, like in this case, the reference isn't. But to say the whole entire Wikipedia is not credible or that it should be ignored when it right on tons upon tons of subjects is simply ignorant...
I am fucking tired of this. If you don't know how to use something, doesn't mean it's the service's fault...
I sure hope you didn't imply me being an idiot, right ? ;] Or else you'd force me to link you the Wikki definition of Paranoia lmao...
Assuming people dunno how to read references is beyond ignorance.
My point simply was for people that arbitrarily think Wikki make these articles out of Heavens and therefore is true... well it's not; my problem comes from the fact that they do not verify these sources, therefore Wikki is no more than a subjective tool.
I don't have a paranoia, I am just noticing the general tendency of people bashing wikipedia for not being something it was never intended to be. It reappears on this forum, so I am starting a jihad. It's what I do.
How is that beyond ignorance? I have personal experience of explaining references to people who don't know about them (especially in school). And most people that hate Wikipedia are the people who don't know about references... or people who don't know what Wiki means. Or just people who complain about everything.
It's a WIKI. It is made to be filled by the people. Therefore, human error is to be taken into consideration. Some verify sources, some don't, some pages are moderated. If you know more than the author does, you can as well help out instead of sitting and complaining about it... If everything was moderated, we would just get another shallow encyclopedia. Wikipedia is only so large because it is filled by the people.
When it comes to general introductory information, wiki is priceless.
Quoted for great justice. People need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize that the world does not revolve around them and their wants and needs.
Yes.
Wikipedia is very credible actually. Since most of it is referenced.
Which other website does that?
*jz_owns_all
Willing to help xfers/mods.
Personally, I think it's a fantastic site, if I ever want to know the history of a band, game, company, religion etc. it's almost always the best place to start, but it is unreliable in many cases which is why when someone links a rumour to Diablo 3 citing wikipedia as their source, it doesn't really cut it.