- StealthSlasher2
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Brains beats brawn get used to it
Fear the Red Comet
Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.
Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted by: StealthSlasher2
Posted by: Silor101
I don't care what u guys say but i think the Halo Wiki is true canon
That's just incredibly stupid logic considering that anyone in this thread (or anywhere else) can go and change anything in the wiki and bend the mindless sheep into believing anything about Halo.
Just because anyone can edit it doesn't make it completely unreliable. I agree that everything it says shouldn't be taken at face value, but I really don't get all completely negative comments about Wikis >_>
You haven't had to deal with a great many fools who do take the various Halo wikis at face value, use false or completely unconfirmed information from said wikis as fact, and then proceed to spread said information in the forum leading others to believe it as fact then automatically refute any actual facts you might have just because the wiki link has a citation at the bottom.
Hell just last week someone tried using Halopedian alone to prove that the Prophecy from Halo Wars was a Marathon Cruiser in the UNSC fleet based off of one picture from Halo Genesis that Halopedian links, but completely misses out on all the text references to it to being a Destroyer that outweigh the one appearance of it looking like a Cruiser (not to mention conflicting appearance within the graphic novel itself with a Halcyon class cruiser). Week before that I had another guy that insisted that the Mk VI had built in thrusters and cited Halopedian and its source of the Halo 4 Teaser trailer, then went on to post a picture from Halopedian of a panel from the Mk VI testing story in the HGN that has absolutely nothing to do with confirming the fact.
Point is, as a quick reference, Halopedian does work well, but only for the people who already know the material from its source. People already familiar with the information first hand can easily discern when the articles go from being solely fact based to a piece that weaves in assumptions as fact without making that assumption clear to the reader. Which leads to the less savvy canon members of the community who turn to them being at a disadvantage when participating in discussions here because they don't have that ability to discern what is or isn't legitimate and will take everything up there as legitimate so long as there's a citation regardless of whether or not said citation is relevant to the statement made for an article. Which in turn, leads to some of the most pointless discussions fueled by misinformation or complete lack of burning up space here. My favorite one has to be the one in which a member tried to argue about the re-entry pack deploying like armor lock (the emp shield based one, not the gel layer one) based off a Halopedian article that said exactly that which cites Halo:Reach as a source.
And comparatively speaking, at least in my experience, it has only been Halo wikis I've had problems with. While one could cite the problem being how canon is inconsistent as it stands, it does not explain away outright errors or fabrications. Nor do other wikis, like Fallout for example, suffer from canon holding it back. Others such as Wookipedia for Star Wars along with other gaming wikis like Mass Effect and Call of Duty don't have an issue with putting up hard articles or making it clear whenever information is assumed in general compared to the Halo wikis.