Talk:Criticisms of the NAC

Shouldn't there be a criticisms of good quizbowl formats page too, for neutrality and all. I know there controversy section on the NAQT already.Zachary Yan (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2014 (PST)

Setting aside that a "criticisms of good quizbowl formats" page would be both rather bare and rather pointless, this isn't Wikipedia. No enforced neutrality, no NPOV nonsense. This page exists because the NAC deserves to be criticized, and because there is a need for an easily-pointed-to compilation of those criticisms. --Rob Carson (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2014 (PST)

Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of this page as it stands -- I think it should be reworked into a coherent summary of the real, fundamental problems with the NAC, not things that we honestly wouldn't care about if we didn't already dislike the tournament (like a moderator making a political aside one time) or stuff like the quality of the questions in 1995, when there were 0 to 2 high school tournaments, and no high school nationals, with good questions. The ethics and plagiarism issue, the field quality, the value problem, and the CURRENT poor quality of the questions should be given much greater focus than piddly side concerns. Matt Weiner (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (PST)

"this page is incomplete"

This warning ("This article is about an important topic in quizbowl. However, a QBWiki administrator has deemed it incomplete. Thus, this article should not yet be used as a source of information.") dates back to the old QBWiki. Why was it put there? What needs to be done so that it can reasonably be removed? Jonah (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2014 (PDT)

You're the only QBWiki administrator I know of, so if you want it gone, go ahead and take it off. I think it was put there six or seven years ago when some of these points weren't as well-sourced (but I'm not certain of that), but this seems pretty well-updated and managed now. Think of how much that one tag has done to make NAC's faults seem subjective or not that bad... --Matt Jackson (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2014 (PDT)

There are some other administrators but they don't seem to be particularly active, at least not in the sense of being administrators. In any event, I've changed it to the "ready" tag since, yes, the old one did make the page seem less trustworthy (in my opinion). Jonah (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2014 (PDT)