We have threads starting up claiming to have "Proof" of any information regarding the Xbox release...it has come to my attention that people take the Minecraft Xbox Wiki page as 100% true and anything can be wrong on it.
What is a reliable source for information?
Anyone working for 4JStudios / Mojang / Microsoft that has information about the Minecraft Xbox Arcade Release.
What is not a reliable source of information?
A wiki page is not an acceptable or a reliable resource. Wikis can be edited by anyone. Even if the Minecraft Xbox wiki is closed and can not be edited by anyone...it is still not a reliable reference when providing your proof to back up anything you read on the internet.
[12] Daniel Kaplan on twitter[13] said it's Microsoft's decision on when it will be released, 4J studios have told Microsoft that the game is ready for release now Microsoft are waiting for a date that they are happy to release.At the Game Developers Conference, it is said the Minecraft for XBLA is coming out on the 17th of March 2012, however this date may change if deemed necessary http://www.minecraft...ki/Xbox_Edition
This is not reliable because it is from the wiki. Notice the numbers after some of the information copied? Those are the references used for the information. If you look at the number, and go to the bottom of the page, it links you to where that information can be found.
_______________
Information on the wiki can be used IF it has a reliable source linked to it. When referring to your proof, use the source on the wiki where the wiki got the information from, not the wiki itself.
Example:
Daniel Kaplan on twitter[13] said it's Microsoft's decision on when it will be released, 4J studios have told Microsoft that the game is ready for release now Microsoft are waiting for a date that they are happy to release.
At the bottom of the page, if you follow resource 13. it leads you here. That is what you use to provide your proof.
Notice:
After that first statement, where it speaks about it saying 4J studios...ect...ect.. and no source is linked to it? That piece of information is not valid until a reliable source proclaims it. Not "well Microsoft said this...or Mojang said this". If they said it, there is proof somewhere from a reliable source.
The main thing I'd say are good sources.... Is XBLA itself. Keep checking it, once it's out, it'll be on there. And the main page to this site..it seems to be pretty accurate with it's news.
People will still post stuff from random sites if they think it's legit.
PS: This is a good thread though.
Thanks. Been looking around for some good reliable sources...just wishful thinking people will see this and finally realize the Xbox wiki is not the God of all information and can never be wrong
The main thing I'd say are good sources.... Is XBLA itself. Keep checking it, once it's out, it'll be on there. And the main page to this site..it seems to be pretty accurate with it's news.
I didn't even think of that lol. I went to the Xbox and an Xbox employee who talks about minecraft...didn't think of the actual XBL page.
We have threads starting up claiming to have "Proof" of any information regarding the Xbox release...it has come to my attention that people take the Minecraft Xbox Wiki page as 100% true and anything can be wrong on it.
What is a reliable source for information?
Anyone working for 4JStudios / Mojang / Microsoft that has information about the Minecraft Xbox Arcade Release.
What is not a reliable source of information?
A wiki page is not an acceptable or a reliable resource. Wikis can be edited by anyone. Even if the Minecraft Xbox wiki is closed and can not be edited by anyone...it is still not a reliable reference when providing your proof to back up anything you read on the internet.
This is not reliable because it is from the wiki. Notice the numbers after some of the information copied? Those are the references used for the information. If you look at the number, and go to the bottom of the page, it links you to where that information can be found.
_______________
Information on the wiki can be used IF it has a reliable source linked to it. When referring to your proof, use the source on the wiki where the wiki got the information from, not the wiki itself.
Example:
At the bottom of the page, if you follow resource 13. it leads you here. That is what you use to provide your proof.
Notice:
After that first statement, where it speaks about it saying 4J studios...ect...ect.. and no source is linked to it? That piece of information is not valid until a reliable source proclaims it. Not "well Microsoft said this...or Mojang said this". If they said it, there is proof somewhere from a reliable source.
They may be edited by anyone, but it's revised several times by other users, so any false information will be changed.
I think for gameplay itself, the minecraft wiki is better.
There is nothing wrong with using a wiki for gameplay. The point I'm making is people flipped out about them adding a rumored release date with no source except with a "Microsoft said at this conference..." but no source...and people took that as the definite day no exceptions.
Even if the false evidence is changed, it was still there, and a lot of people believe "if it was posted on the internet it must be real!"
not all the time there right some people like to troll so what would we expect from wiki i use it mostly for researching.
Problem is, I'm trying to put the information out there that Wikis are not a good form of "research". If you were in school, high school, or college/university, it's usually standard that the teachers/professors will not accept any report with the source from a wiki webpage.
Excellent Topic. It's about time someone steps out to degrade the status of a wiki to an appropriate level of reliability contrary to what most people believe as the almighty source.
A wiki page has one major flaw. It is valid only if it has evidence/references from a credible source (not another wiki). Otherwise, it is useless. Additionally, a wiki page serves mostly as a secondary or tertiary source in contrast to a primary source coming from an actual representative of the game. A wiki can be edited by anyone but as long as references are included, they may be valid so long as it uses a logical connection between references.
I've been watching the wiki minecraft xbla edition every one in a while during the past month and every so often I find invalid statements that turn out to be wrong and on that very same day, they are edited it such that is says something of the form "It is/was said that..., etc." Whoever is modifying that wiki page is, honestly, doing a poor job at it. Having set up the release date to be March 17 prior to that day only to be wrong is clear evidence that no effort was placed in verification of release.
Furthermore, it may be that I have a "mathematical/scientific" approach to things so what people consider as "proof" is simply rediculous. Evidence is a single object/event/etc that may explain more to a story if more evidence is present. The entire evidence revealing a fairly accurate representation of the story is the proof. Of course, since this is not mathematics, the proof may have errors. The solution: Wait until some official says the actually release date (which is in itself evidence and the complete proof).
(I'm not the best at grammar.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Forum AdminWhat is a reliable source for information?
Anyone working for 4J Studios / Mojang / Microsoft that has information about the Minecraft Xbox Arcade Release.
What is not a reliable source of information?
A wiki page is not an acceptable or a reliable resource. Wikis can be edited by anyone. Even if the Minecraft Xbox wiki is closed and can not be edited by anyone...it is still not a reliable reference when providing your proof to back up anything you read on the internet.
Example:
Any threads started about the release date (there shouldn't even be any of these).
This is not reliable because it is from the wiki. Notice the numbers after some of the information copied? Those are the references used for the information. If you look at the number, and go to the bottom of the page, it links you to where that information can be found.
_______________
Information on the wiki can be used IF it has a reliable source linked to it. When referring to your proof, use the source on the wiki where the wiki got the information from, not the wiki itself.
Example:
At the bottom of the page, if you follow resource 13. it leads you here. That is what you use to provide your proof.
Notice:
After that first statement, where it speaks about it saying 4J studios...ect...ect.. and no source is linked to it? That piece of information is not valid until a reliable source proclaims it. Not "well Microsoft said this...or Mojang said this". If they said it, there is proof somewhere from a reliable source.
This is what I found regarding the matter from a 4J Studios employee.
List of Reliable Sources
I will be adding to this list, Feel free to help me out by providing links.
Mojang
- The Mojang Team @mojangteam
- Daniel Kaplan @kappische
- Jens Bergensten @jeb_
4J Studios- 4J Studios @4jstudios
- Paddy Burns @padware
MicrosoftI will not directly link Microsoft because there is more to Microsoft then Xbox.
- Xbox @xbox
- Roger Carpenter @popsramjet
- Minecraft - Xbox Marketplace
OtherThe main thing I'd say are good sources.... Is XBLA itself. Keep checking it, once it's out, it'll be on there. And the main page to this site..it seems to be pretty accurate with it's news.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Forum AdminThanks. Been looking around for some good reliable sources...just wishful thinking people will see this and finally realize the Xbox wiki is not the God of all information and can never be wrong
I didn't even think of that lol. I went to the Xbox and an Xbox employee who talks about minecraft...didn't think of the actual XBL page.
good job, let these people know that wiki is NOT a reliable source!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Forum AdminI think for gameplay itself, the minecraft wiki is better.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Forum AdminEven if the false evidence is changed, it was still there, and a lot of people believe "if it was posted on the internet it must be real!"
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Forum AdminA wiki page has one major flaw. It is valid only if it has evidence/references from a credible source (not another wiki). Otherwise, it is useless. Additionally, a wiki page serves mostly as a secondary or tertiary source in contrast to a primary source coming from an actual representative of the game. A wiki can be edited by anyone but as long as references are included, they may be valid so long as it uses a logical connection between references.
I've been watching the wiki minecraft xbla edition every one in a while during the past month and every so often I find invalid statements that turn out to be wrong and on that very same day, they are edited it such that is says something of the form "It is/was said that..., etc." Whoever is modifying that wiki page is, honestly, doing a poor job at it. Having set up the release date to be March 17 prior to that day only to be wrong is clear evidence that no effort was placed in verification of release.
Furthermore, it may be that I have a "mathematical/scientific" approach to things so what people consider as "proof" is simply rediculous. Evidence is a single object/event/etc that may explain more to a story if more evidence is present. The entire evidence revealing a fairly accurate representation of the story is the proof. Of course, since this is not mathematics, the proof may have errors. The solution: Wait until some official says the actually release date (which is in itself evidence and the complete proof).
(I'm not the best at grammar.)