(Mar. 14, 2019 6:40 AM)Dt20000 Wrote: You’ve missed a few key points while creating this statement. The first thing you missed is the fact that it is stated many times throughout the articles in question that this is speculation and a draft. These drafts are not being published until after reliable information has been gained and when multiple other people have approved that it is correct.
The second thing you missed is that this is the WBO, not the Beyblade Wiki. A few articles and things it say are inaccurate, but people are constantly trying to fix it or warn others. If the WBO is wrong about something, that does not mean that the false information in question will spread to the Beyblade Wiki. A well-trained eye will catch the mistake and fix it. Sure, many mistakes have gone through, but the WBO’s articles are living documents. They are constantly being improved and updated when new information is procured. For example, if the Beyblade Wiki was never updated and very unreliable, it would say Valkyrie was a top tier attack layer that you would need multiple copies for. However, someone updated it when it became outclassed.
You do make a strong point, but is it strong enough?
Good points, let me clarify -
Difference between "Speculation" vs "Draft"
1) Speculation is a strong, precise word with a deep meaning and implications. Speculation is when you claim/say something about a subject matter that you do not have a reasonable grasp of knowledge. A draft does not imply that the contents are speculation, nor does it imply that the contents are verified/trusted. Stating that something is a draft doesn't point to a possibility of speculation - which is what these articles are doing.
Initial Perceptions Skew the Truth
2a) When you make a speculation on the first draft, it skews people's perceptions towards whatever that's written. People will become biased after reading it, making their subsequent comments/posts about it less objective. This ultimately skews the direction of the article away from where it truly should be.
Inertia to Change
2b) It is a lot of extra work and inertia to correct a wrong claim after it is made. A careless claim made on the first draft has a decent chance of making it into the final one. Spewing a lot of wrong claims in the first draft will make a lot of time/posts wasted in correcting it. Why not wait for some people to actually get their hands on it, listen to their thoughts, then make the first draft?
Doesn't Hurt to Wait
It would be much better for these articles as a whole if you took the time to actually review the product yourself, or hear the thoughts of people who actually have it before you make a draft.
If you *really* want the "prestige" of being the person who creates the thread on the product, go ahead. The imaginary internet points are all yours. But there's no need to write an inaccurate draft, for the reasons I mentioned above. Just write something like "To be written". No one will steal your thunder now.
If you guys still want to do this, here's what I think would be a really great compromise for both sides -
Instead of speculating the performance of the parts, why not make the draft based on what's actually being *marketed* by TT? For example, for Power (the new Valkyrie driver), you can write something like "It is advertised to be really good for attack, due to the speed caused by the huge flat tip".