WesWorld

That pretty much answers my question... There's too much fiction scrambled with the truth on this site for anyone to ascertain which is which (except the contributing author, who posted the data)!

Spit-balling:
(1) Would it be worth screening off Member User-accessed data for players to use , and provide an example subset viewable by passersby (with the necessary warnings/disclaimers attached)? That way, data is considered suspect by those seeking factual sources (unless you want to tag all the fantasy data...).

(2) The danger in posting material on the internet is that there is no culpability for actions which cause others to be misled. A self-policing venue, the internet should establish a set of rules by which fiction can be distinguished from fact... But, I guess, that's a problem bigger than this group is prepared to champion.

F.O.

To be blunt, everything on this site/board is fiction, centered around the geopolitical/naval simulation we're running. Technically, even the historical ships and equipment are our interpretations thereof, derived using programs such as Springsharp and the like. Some differ more than others, but there's more often than not some deviation from known and established statistics to conform to the rules and mechanics in use.

As for 2) ...we're just running a game here, not out to police the internet. A discussion on ways to make it more obvious to the casual visitor that this site is fiction is something we're discussing, as you can see, but in the end it's always the burden of the researcher to perform due dilligence on any sources he or she uses.

This site has been going since 2003, that seven years. Most folks in the naval buff category know what Wesworld is all about. We seem pretty popular and well known but not too popular (becuase that brings its own problems).

Anyone who takes Wikipedia at face value is obviously not taking any research seriously, while its useful to check facts I wouldn't trust any specification data there. There are many more specialised sites out there to cater for such data. There is no Wesworld Vs Wikipedia arguement, one fulfills one function the other another function. The two aren't compatible. I don't think we really need an article about ourselves on Wiki. Anyone who wants to know what goes on here merely has to tap the name into Google and come look.

And what is wrong with buying a few books or getting down to your local library to get some well researched data? Much more reliable and its more fun than trawling the pages of Wikipedia. Really folks need to think of other sources than the net or even this site. Too much spoon feeding, don't you think we don't make our own researches first from all kinds of sources to make our designs more realsitic (as opposed to a nationstates type realism).

What troubles me, in general, with experience of other sites is that we are always expected to dumb down for the minority. Those who can't tell India naver built a dozen battlecruisers and carriers, who can't find Atlantis on google earth or who can't tell Chile never built a large ocean going fleet really should get some basic naval books out and start reading some history. No amount of banners would help. Common sense should tell you that this is an alt-univerese site and that whatever we post isn't likely to be accurate.

This site owes its existence to Springstyle and Springsharp and without them life here would never have started. Both are flawed tools and shouldn't be taken as an reliable methods to sim a real ship. Many do not work out in Springsharp. It is not worth trying to sim real ships for real data. 99% of SS reports are probably fictional ships. Probably you should avoid the Navalism AU site too...

Freaks me out sometimes to do a Google image search on a particular ship and one of the top results is one of my own pictures!

Quoted

Originally posted by CanisD
Freaks me out sometimes to do a Google image search on a particular ship and one of the top results is one of my own pictures!

Yes, I have found that doing research for Yugoslav industry - find my own entries in the WW encyclopedia.

I haven't found my work as a reference in Wikipedia yet, but I have a feeling that one day I might.

Very disturbing...

ShinRa_Inc,
- It's good that the group has decided to discuss the issue. I do ask you to note, that in exchange of information there is communication. For communication to occur, two must be involved (hence "dialogue"). Responsibility lies on both sides...

Hood,
- It's immaterial how long you've had it in operation. Those who interface with it for the first time (particularly from a blind search), where it isn't required to pass the user thru a portal having disclaimers, won't know that it's a game... hence my initial post.
- Wikipedia had a noble idea, a resource on the internet more easily representing information (and updating) than the classic set of books on a shelf. Several years ago I corrected some data, and they made your statement. But, I convinced them that to be a useful resource, they needed to screen the BS which was posted. They've placed measures to identify clearly any unsubstantiated info... Nothing wrong with buying books. They just aren't going to survive the next 20 years.
- The crowd who has never known a day without internet is fast becoming the generation who're leading business and government. Now, I don't know what the UK feels, but America would like the leaders who run our economy and nation to have better sense than to trust the internet implicitly. Note, this new generation is full of theory , and no experience . They won't know when to trust and when not to do so, because the real sources are no longer available.
- It isn't a matter of "dumbing down", it's a matter of misinformation being accepted as fact. Poor decisions are made that way.

If one isn't part of the solution, then one's part of the problem...

F.O.

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way."
-- Thomas Paine

Quoted

Originally posted by Frigate.Officer
Nothing wrong with buying books. They just aren't going to survive the next 20 years.

You speak about communication. Fine. Your sentance above is written as if it is an accepted fact that books will not survive the next 20 years.

I ask you to proof it.

Or to put it in terms more appropriate to a Wikipedian:

It's been some time since I first saw your most recent reply, Frigate.Officer, and I refrained from replying because I'm unsure of the best way to do so...

But I do feel a need to reply somehow, and I'll do my best; While we're all a very open minded lot, and generally favorable towards listening to and contemplating new ideas, discussion, and welcoming visitors and other interested fellows, and the like, I do have to say the tone and attitude of your posts are a bit off-puttng, coming as they are from a fellow who obviously stumbled upon our site by chance, and is rather confused as to it's purpose and nature.

The general feeling that comes off your recent posts, is that we, a board that has been functioning for seven+ years, is somehow at fault for you and others not realizing that this is a game and discussion forum, and not a historical archive. While I've said there is some merit to be said for us doing a bit more to establish this is just a game, no where do we claim to be otherwise. It seems rather presumptous for a visitor to essentially drop by, and begin to lecture us on how what we're doing wrong in regards to other people's misconceptions.

As you say, for communication to occur, two must be involved. When people use data from our game without discussing it with us, not only are they doing something ethically dubious (ie; plagarism), but any faults or inaccuracies obtained from this method are their own fault and responsability.

To reiterate; This board is a game. It always has been, and it always shall be. At no point or place do we claim otherwise, and while it's regrettable that some people do not perform due dilligence, and assume data and statisics from our game is factual and correct, it is neither our job nor obligation to police the world's misconceptions.

--

I also have to second HoOmAn's displeasure at your own disparagement of books; I dare say there is not a player here who does not own or otherwise have access to books on a great many subjects related to the areas of interest this Simulation touches upon. While the Internet has indeed made a great deal of information more readily available, a great deal of it is of dubious veracity.

I have no doubt that professionally researched, plotted, and written books will continue to be a resource well into the foreseeable future, and a more reliable and valued resource to boot. You would do well to visit your library and look up (or try and obtain the books for yourself) any number of books on the subject of Naval history and construction. The books of Norman Friedman are held in great esteem by those with an interest in the subject, as well as Seigfried Breyer, Jentschura, among others our other players can no doubt mention.


addemdum; Your comments about a 'portal', a main page seperate from the actual board and the like, would likely not be terribly effective, as most people appearently use Google, which links them directly to various threads and pages, not our main page.

Frigate.Officer, in short, as others have said there is very little we can do under our current forum format to ensure the wayward Google serfer stumbles upon out site and mistakes it for factual. Wikipedia too is in some cases woefully inaccurate, such is the way things are on the internet.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by Frigate.Officer
Nothing wrong with buying books. They just aren't going to survive the next 20 years.

You speak about communication. Fine. Your sentance above is written as if it is an accepted fact that books will not survive the next 20 years.

I ask you to proof it.

My wife, Lady Green, has among her collection, a book on classical civilisation (Roman, I think) dating from 1832.
Books will always be around; electronic media is an adjunct, not a replacement.

I've got books dating back to 1898, on battles that defined the world as it was then. If books have survived for thousands of years, and internet has survived for 20, what makes the internet so much more likely to replace books.

I work in the printing industry and I can't count the number of times I've heard people say the internet will be the downfall of newspapers and yet my company is in the third press expansion in the last 5 years, and in the middle of a weak economic period to boot.

Old books and magazines are IMO most valuable in that they show how they thoght and what was expected of the future (talking about military matters) while new books are superior when it comes hard facts, its also quite fun to see all the disinformation the various countries put out.