I've heard that it's possible, but I haven't been able to find how to do it.

First time I hear of that, and it seems very unlikely: the only possible place would be the captain's cabin, and since it's the trigger for a mini-scenario, wouldn't it conflict? The poor sims would have to run out of the cabin before they can make themselves decent :p

Maybe they can do it in the crow's nest? You might as well click all over every part of the thing, see if anything, um, pops up.

Since I had to launch the game anyway for some testing, I bought a ship ( on a Bluewater Village residential lot). You can't actually click on various parts of the thing, it's one big clickable zone that calls the same pie menu.
There was no option to join or ask to join at any moment (apart from the one we already know of, when they laugh like maniacs while standing at the wheel).
While the sim is inside the cabin, he can't actually click on another sim at all, and other sims don't get an extra option in the menu or anything.
So I guess, just another case of overediting the wiki...

So we can file this under "hacks you'd like to see" then.

I went ahead and had a look in the game code. There are no BHAV's related to woohoo under pirate ship BHAVs, and no mention inside any of the BHAVs to woohoo or woohoo-related code. I'm no expert, but I think that's pretty definitive proof that it doesn't exist. I looked at a couple of other woohoo-places, and those do have their own woohoo-bhavs.

Perhaps someone with editing abilities could remove it from the wiki.

I've removed the misinformation from the wiki, as well as doing a bit of copy-editing on the article.

And @gummilutt You don't need any editing skill to edit pages on The Sims Wiki. You don't even need an account. All you have to do is click the "Edit" button at the top of the article you wish to edit. See? We generally encourage people to Be Bold and edit the wiki. It's just easier if people took initiative and did things themselves instead of thinking the wiki is written entirely by an editorial staff, which it isn't.

When I say editing abilities, I mean knowledge enough to actually edit it. I tried to edit the sim wiki back in the day, and I could not make sense of the format. I can look at BHAVs, but wiki confuses me :P

Be bold, just don't write things like "Dirk Dreamer is gay" or "ANGELA PLEASANT WAS HERE <3" on there or I'll call Port Simasota High School and tell them you're misusing the school computers.

The wiki does have an approval system, so that stuff added is checked before it goes online, right? Otherwise anyone could do anything to it.

No, it doesn't. Neither does Wikipedia. New edits made to the wiki are logged in Special:RecentChanges, which a lot of editors (including myself) check regularly. Wikipedia has its own recent changes too. A lot of people can't fathom being able to do this, but it's not anarchy as much as teachers like to make you think it is.

Think of it this way: just like how someone could reply to a thread here with false information, one could add false information to most wikis. However, someone else will come along and notice it is wrong (often within seconds) and revert it, just like someone else here would come along and refute the incorrect info. Wikipedia is actually more strict than MTS, because anything that isn't backed up by a reliable source is subject to reversion, even if what is said is correct.

And by the way, at Wikipedia the subject of the article is not considered a reliable source, even on things like number of children, place of birth, date of spouse's death, etc. I know plenty of authors who've not been allowed to correct factual errors in entries on them and their own work. Not to mention the standard white-male-middle-class-bias-masquerading-as-objectivity problem (which is common to print encyclopedias, too). It's a goodish place to get started on research, because you can use their bibliography, but it is not in itself a good enough reference for a decent research paper.

And the Sims Wiki, similarly, can be used as a starting point. Things like Don Lothario's starsign can probably be taken at face value. Things like this it makes perfect sense to test and ask questions about.

.

That's not entirely true; primary sources can be used, but shouldn't be the only source used in an article. As for editing an article and saying "well I'm the subject, I would know," it would be wayyyyy too easy for a troll to claim to be Stevie Nicks, Taylor Swift, Barack Obama, etc., and there's only a handful of people at Wikipedia that could actually verify such claim. Since editing one's own article is generally discouraged anyway due to bias, that's not something they generally get involved in. It would be much easier for the subject to just post up the correct information on his/her official website and link to that as a source rather than say "I'm the subject so I know such and such is true/untrue."

Wikipedia generally discourages editing of one's own biography -- however, correcting unambiguous errors of fact is permitted. The reason why Wikipedia discourages this is because of the conflict of interest that can bar people from writing in a neutral point of view. If you're writing about yourself or a company you work for you have a very high tendency of praising the subject, and Wikipedia does not praise or attack, as a strict rule. Otherwise though, if you do have a Wikipedia article about yourself, larger changes can be proposed on its talk page, or you might be able to ask for assistance otherwise at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

A lot of people view Wikipedia negatively for this, but it's always important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there are lots of things that it is not. I know very few teachers that either know how to use Wikipedia properly or how it actually works. Some of my teachers recommend Wikipedia as a "starting off spot" for research. At the bottom of articles there should be a section filled with references and links to other websites and sources. Wikipedia can help summarize what the topic is about, and then you can use the sources at the bottom of the article to further your research, and that's what you'll cite in any research paper or essay. Encyclopedias have always been looked down upon in schools too, so it's not just Wikipedia. Wikipedia, though, is unique in the fact that it's written by the people that read it, so they'll easily know when there's an error in an article or not. The idea of having an Edit button that anyone can use is that, if you see an error or a statement needing a citation, you can go ahead and fix it yourself, instead of forwarding a complaint that joins the backlog of millions of emails that goes nowhere.

And exactly what bnefriends said. I've been approached by a lot of people that question me on reverting their edits to their own biography page and never cited a source. "I'm the subject so I know it" is an example of original research, which any encyclopedia or research paper must NEVER accept because there is no way to properly support it. Also, "I'm the subject" is impossible to verify because anyone can create an account and pretend to be another person. This is not limited to Wikipedia but to most of the Internet as well. Since there's no way of verifying it, it cannot be accepted at all.

And yet, "Personal communication" is a valid reference. There are ways to verify a primary source, even over the internet.

Also - they are rude about it.

No idea how whoever wrote that got that, because it's not listed in the guide about reliable sources.

And, exactly where was the rudeness spotted? That's against the civility policy too! Though I understand that it can be difficult to keep your cool over an editing dispute. It happens all the time, and it usually takes a calm reminder for both parties to cool down.



@gummilutt They introduced the Rich Text Editor, which makes it easier to edit articles, and the new (but in an experienced editor's point of view, very crappy) VisualEditor. Understanding Wikitext is not difficult, it just takes practice and some getting used to. There's a cheatsheet available.

Peni's not wrong about that; some people over there are rude and nasty about things, despite WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. While I'd say the majority don't, there are some that bite newbies and it ruins their perception of the project. Then there's admins that block shared IPs (especially schools) for ridiculous amounts of time for making all of three malicious edits within a three week time span after coming off of a previous long term block. Really, three bad edits are "persistent" vandalism and good reason to block approximately 20,000 users from contributing to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?"

Although, when I was about 17, I used to be one of the biggest assholes about contacting schools and ISPs about "cheerleader-like vandalism," which was merely simple vandalism/test edits to certain pages I had on a watchlist (mainly to keep an eye out for a particular troll). Then I realized that was mean to do unless they were persistent vandals or they wrote someone's name down which could be cyberbullying; I realized going out of my way to embarrass what are probably nice girls just because one cheerleader was a troll was cruel thing to do even though they shouldn't have made those edits. Biting the newbies who aren't very familiar with the policies isn't cool.

I know you love wiki k6ka, and I do too. But as a user, not a contributor. I agree it's not difficult in the same way that reading code is not difficult. It is when you don't know what you are doing, it's not when you do know. Getting to that point, might not be difficult, but it takes interest and time, and someone you can ask questions. I'm not bothered.

If I ever do decide to, it'll be on the real wikipedia, and it'll be adding Swedish pages to link to English pages, to help future med students translate terms that I had to spend hours googling to find translations for.

As a freelance translator (into Norwegian) the translated pages on Wikipedia are a life-saver. Including the Swedish and Danish ones.

Do you also use the MeSH to find medical terms, and translations? It is on KI, but is open for everybody.
http://kib.ki.se/node/173143

I agree, I would not know what to do without Wikipedia (and Urban Dictionary.)

I do, yes, but to be honest, mesh stinks. It doesn't even have many basic generic terms. Sometimes it'll surprise you and have something obscure, but it's rarely helpful. I recently discovered medicinskordbok.se which is turning out to be very helpful though.

They have that visual editor now that's supposed to make things easier for the "lamers" (old school computer jargon, not meant by me to be an insult). I think it's funny/awesome as heck though when you see some kid editing from a school IP address undoing adults' and older kids' vandalism. Or how a low wage worker in a supermarket or a hospital kitchen can slip onto one of the computers in the office during a break and do RC patrol for 15 minutes. It truly goes to show how easy the system can be to learn, though as Gummilutt said, to learn it requires interest.

Sorry, but your post rather annoys me. The way it written sort of says that a low wage worker would somehow be stupid enough to prove that doing it is easy, because if even they can then surely it is.

That said, it sure is touching to know the work of all these volunteers, who keep wiki more or less accurate for the rest of us.

And, since we're already discussing wiki. Is it acceptable to have a source in a difference language? Say, if I wanted to add a page on something medical in Swedish, could I cite an english book for it? Or do I have to have proof that it says that thing in the language it's written in?

They're not stupid. In fact, I'd venture to say no one that contributes to Wikipedia is "stupid," not even the ones that are in elementary school. If they were "stupid," they would be vandals. But many of them have no official qualifications in information technology. Not even geniuses are born "qualified" to work for Apple or Microsoft, but they can contribute to Wikipedia at age 5 if they hold the maturity to do so at that age.

Actually, that was a reference to myself editing from a grocery store, and later from a hospital kitchen, hardly calling myself "stupid."