Something that bugs me

[RepentantSky]

I'm not sure where to put this so please feel free to move it or lock it but I have something I wanted to address. When I first joined this site, I tried to submit two facts for Spyro the Dragon and was denied because I was lazy and just tired using wikipedia as my source. I was looking over the facts for Kingdom Hearts, for obvious reasons, since the HD collection is coming soon, and I checked the sources of a few of them hoping to find a place where I might find credible sources because I was going to try and submit some KH facts that weren't there. The sources though were the Kingdom Hearts wiki. If I'm not mistaken, that is basically wikipedia is it not? I just wanted to know why that source was okay when mine wasn't. If someone could tell me what the difference is, I'd really appreciate an explanation. Thank you for taking the time to read this and again I apologize since I don't know where to put this.

[Dazz]

Wikis that are dedicated to a single series are more reliable for researched information. Wikipedia is open to guests to edit, and is not regularly moderated on incorrect information for games.

The same does happen in these individual wikis, but it is far more rare a case.

[RepentantSky]

Whenever I'm not sure how I feel about what I see or read, I read it a few times and no matter how many times I read what you wrote, that just doesn't seem like it should cut it. But I suppose if that's how it works, that's how it works. Thank you for letting me know, the information is appreciated.

[DidYouKnowGaming]

Everything on the KH page that's sourced to a wiki has an image attachment to help backup the submission. I disagree with Dazz in that I think the vast majority of wikis aren't proof read or researched properly, but there's nothing wrong with that page in my eyes. Everything there has evidence, and isn't just uncited text on a wiki being added to the site.