OK, I'll keep this short: I'm sorry I've not been particularly active on this site. I had and still do have big ideas and visions for what this site could be, and think if I put to work in I could greatly improve, but it doens't seem like it'll happen. This even startd because I was approached by one of the admins because he thought I'd be good for the job, and I didn't deliver, at least not for long.
As an admin, I try to keep a relatively serious and professional composure and way of speaking, but in reality I'm a really lazy person. I never end up following through on these sorts of things. I'll do something in a big burst, then I'll move on, and remember it later, like I am now. It repeats. I wish I wasn't like this, but I just am. Even…Read more >
Another step towards both acuracy and professionalism is, of course, is an organized and useful categorization system. There are at least a few problems with how categories are handled on Cryptid Wiki. I hope to address some of these here and put in some guidelines on how to and how not to decide what categories an article belongs to.
For the first thing requiring addressing: Relevance. As per usual, an example shall be give. This time, the article I'll use is the Ambize article. I have just removed four cateogories from this article, which incentivized me to finally touch on this subject that I've been wanting to talk about for a little bit now. If you are curious about this case specifically, or want further explanation, see the first not…Read more >
Similar to yesteryday's blog post I made on a more professional writing style for the wiki, I have another post on how I think the wiki should be regulated for it's improvement, somewhat tying in to my two overall goals: professionalism and accuracy. Once again, I have a particular article as example: the 50 Foot Congo Snake article.
Looking at the article, there is a picture, which I presume to be a picture of the exact creature the article mentioned. But it lacks a caption. Therefore, I cannot know for sure whether or not it is the individual described, or if it's just a picture of a snake to fill in blanks. A reader could have the same problem. Without allusion in the article or the caption of the picture, they can assume, but not know, …Read more >
In the past I've argued that a lot of things on this site don't really qualify much as cryptids, but if categorized properly, I have revoked opinions that such articles shouldn't be here. However, even with the broad range for what can be on this wiki, I think this wiki is far to unprofessional in it's style and writing.
I have a particular article as example to demostrate me point: the Behemoth article. Just ten minutes ago I edited the following paragraph, with the one on top being the original, and the second the current version:
"Some people claim that the Behemoth was a hippo, rhino or elephant, but that does not make much sense since hippos, rhinos and elephants do not have tails like cedars. Their tails are quite small. Many Christian…Read more >