On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The long term solution for this particular topic is
for people to
start writing books about MUDs. One or two books by reputable
publishers with a chapter on that MUD would have made deletion
impossible. One or two anytime in the future will permit reinstating
the article.
If some Wikipedia admins want conventional sources, give them
conventional sources
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia(a)zog.org>
wrote:
2009/1/10 Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> "Wikipedia editors should really have enough knowledge about their
> subject matter to make choices based on good judgement rather than
strict
> adherence to flawed guidelines. Any
guideline, law or contract doesn't
> absolve one from using one's brain — these things are just frameworks
for
> handling worst-case scenarios better.
>
>
http://www.unwesen.de/articles/wikipedia_on_mud_history
>
> This is what is frustrating to me. Although I am not recognized expert
on
MUDs, I
know enough that the decision made is obviously wrong, while
those making the decision seem entirely innocent of the subject.
Oh, we shouldn't worry that there's a hole in Wikipedia MUD coverage
where
Threshold used to be -- from the AfD:
- *KEEP*. Read all other MUDs in category, Threshold is definitely most
notable of them all with the most independent press coverage. [...]
- *Comment* WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS>gt;,
for one; we'll get to deleting those
other MUD articles in due
time, if it's
merited. [...]
I don't know know about any of you, but when the first thing on the
closing
admin's talk page is "I have deleted
over 1,700 pages on Wikipedia,
through
C:CSD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C:CSD>
and
WP:AFD<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD>FD>.
A very small percentage of that, 2-3%, have been listed at deletion
review<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV>RV>,
and only a handful have been overturned -- and not a single one has been
because of "corruption" or bad
faith<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF>.">.",
I get a really bad feeling.
Michel
It would be simpler and easier to file an Arbcom case for the closing admin
having brought Wikipedia into disrepute, and get him desysopped.
Pour encourager les autres...
Deletionism has had a good run. Now it's having a bad run, and it's got to
get knocked back into a socially acceptable state. We're all suffering for
the lack of sense its adherents are showing. It's damaging the community,
it's a longstanding huge embarrassment with the rest of the Internet
community, and it's the worst area of process wonkery.
Deleting [[My Little Dog Fluffy]] is fine. Deleting bands without recording
contracts is fine. People being eager and happy to aggressively do far more
than that is just wrong. We as a community need to stand up and say that
it's too destructive, even if the editors and admins in question are good
people and acting out of their perceived interests of the good of the
encyclopedia. There are plenty of good people who want to help Wikipedia
who we can't actually tolerate being around the community. Rabid
deletionists have reached that point, collectively.
It's got to stop.
I am on vacation, or I would be headed on-wiki and not to bed. I encourage
someone not on vacation to file a case.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com