Talk:Notpron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it necessary to explictly mention other wikipedia articles when they are already linked? I mean, "according to wikipedia" in a wikipedia article sounds like circular reasoning ... -- Madeleine 12:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it's necessary either. I'm going to do some cleanup on this article, it's not as formal as most articles, it's generally a mess... --RincewindSW 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've got to be kidding

This entire article is clearly one big advertisment, how is it even being allowed to remain up? It is bloated with so much self-aggrandizing rhetoric that one would be hardpressed to believe it wasn't submitted by the site's creator or one of his friends. If "citation needed" is supposed to be the band-aid placed on such a blatant infomercial while it sits publicly accessible 24/7 for the world to see, then all of the other hundreds of riddle incarnations should have their own pages as well, and they should be able to make equally unverifiable claims with no apparent rebuke.

Anyone who knows anything about the internet already knows Notpron was not the first online puzzle, even its creator freely admits the idea came from a previous online puzzle, so it is not especially notable and worthy of its own article. If popularity is being utilized as the crutch upon which this article is posted, then Wikipedia is flat out advertising it, because the assertion that it is the "most famous" is simply impossible to validate. No currently available documentation exists to support that claim short of a counter on the website.

Search engines results can't be considered reliable sources, particularly if the engine is forced upon the user of a given riddle by its creator thanks to advertising incentive programs offered by the corporation. This technique is being utilized by both Notpron and Kelly Clarkson riddle, the latter being twice as guilty for riding the coattails of a celebrity in order to promote its web presence. Beyond that, and due to the inherent nature of these puzzles, there are entire networks of websites dedicated to making 'spoilers' publicly available to the masses. This causes search engines to invoke wildly exaggerated results, since the message boards reiterate the name of the given puzzle in an almost spam-like fashion, with endless posts containing hundreds of urls back to the puzzle's various pages.

Based on the above, the only reasonable conclusion is that either none of them are allowed to have a dedicated article, or all of them are allowed to have a dedicated article, and this same philosophy applies to the notion of providing a list or citing a given puzzle in the article about the puzzles. Since my statements in the online puzzle discussion provide further support and are cohesively related to this argument, here is the link: Online Puzzle discussion - Hypocrisy.

• As mentioned in the other discussion, I don't have any real stake in this matter (although I have played most of these puzzles), but it's clear that these things are a legitimate phenomenom, even the infancy of a new art form, and as such they are worthy of discussion. I take my hat off to all of the people engaged in the creation of them. In my view, however, the definitive online puzzle/internet riddle hasn't been created yet, which is frankly another reason why they should be discussed.

StewartDaniels 12:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)StewartDaniels

• ...And insofar, NotPron does seem to be the definitive one. The fact that this article hasn't been deleted yet is proof of this, for me. In my eyes, NotPron is the greatest online riddle I've ever played (screw NPOV, this is discussion!), it was the community base for dozens of other riddles, and it has 10000000+ page views.

As for the advertisement, I can't really see how it could be vastly improved. It depends how you read it. It does state facts, but with things like this it's tricky to keep your NPOV. You could go round deleting anything that says it challenges one's mind, but the article would be less comprehensive. It is kind of true that DavidM (the creator) requested that the article be tidied up, rewritten, and polished off, in a thread in the official forum. Wikipedia. He Personal Messaged me, asking if I'd be interested, and I made my edits to the text. David himself didn't want to, presumably because he knew he'd be accused of advertisement. He did not make the article, but saw that since it was there it may as well be a good one. --RincewindSW 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just found out about this game and my first thought was "I wonder if there is an article on wikipedia for it". I dunno, I'm no admin but seems to me only one person is upset by this/thinks it is an ad. Though I wonder why make this 'ad' since the site isn't selling anything and has no advertisements on it (that I can tell) for other things.... just my $.02 - Tuffsnake 12/8/2006

• The idea that the proof supporting the argument is simply because a Wikipedia article hasn't been deleted is rather specious and shortsighted. It hasn't been deleted from Wikipedia because nobody really cares, which ironically proves my point that it is not particularly worthy of the article in the first place. I would do it myself, except I don't feel it's my place, one of the riddle makers (who's article would likely be deleted instantly as either insignificant or an advertisement) should do it. Wikipedia remains a good idea with poor execution. There is typically little to no authentic verification of anything to be found in these pages.

• For the record, the site does indeed sell things, such as shirts and books, but that's irrelevant to the fact that it is being advertised in Wikipedia, along with so many other articles that have no business in these pages. It is also somewhat dodgy that a person could stumble upon a website and immediately concern themselves with whether or not it has a Wikipedia article.

• Hit counters are not verifiable and should not be the basis for the argument. It is not difficult for someone, especially someone who's expertise happens to be html manipulation, to place any number they choose to place into a hit counter. This is analagous to voting for a president because his website has a counter with a higher number. It just doesn't make sense. The arguments in support of this are clearly biased. I suspect if the other riddle makers cared enough to get involved in this discussion, it would be ugly. StewartDaniels 19:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"It is also somewhat dodgy that a person could stumble upon a website and immediately concern themselves with whether or not it has a Wikipedia article". I'm sorry my fellow gent but pray tell why is this dodgy? Would it be as dubious if I were to hear of a person and wonder if they were on wikipedia? Or if I were to stumble on an old game from the 80s and want to see if it had an article? I believe wikipedia to be a source of information. Should I happen across something new and want more information I don't see what about wanting to go to an encyclopedia to find more info on it is dubious. Tuffsnake 12/14/2006