Nothing exceptional about this, of course: http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh.
Well, there are many articles and statements that can't or don't need to be verified. Once I translated like 3 paragraphs of a Roger Waters interview, from Spanish to English, that I read on a magazine and thus didn't need sources nor they could be put. Two days later, my substantial contribution was deleted. Wikipedia should really stop making blind decisions and actually take a small time to read at least a couple of sentences of the article/ contribution and then think if they need sources.
-- Alvaro
On 10-01-2009, at 11:54, "Michel Vuijlsteke" wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course: http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A lot of the early internet stuff isn't well documented by today's deletion discussion standards. Websites that were well known (in certain circles) in the 90s are gone now or look quaint and hobbyish today. I think a Wikia wiki might be perfect for collecting and maintaining the history of the mudding world., and now would be a good time to do it - even the most popular muds are dead now by the standards of some cookie cutter DIKU muds of 10 years ago.
Nathan
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.orgwrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The only hit "MUD" gets on Wikia now is
http://dragonheart.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Dragonheart, a MUD created in 1995, but the wiki is completely neglected.
I'll go ahead and ask for a Wikia site.
Fred
A lot of the early internet stuff isn't well documented by today's deletion discussion standards. Websites that were well known (in certain circles) in the 90s are gone now or look quaint and hobbyish today. I think a Wikia wiki might be perfect for collecting and maintaining the history of the mudding world., and now would be a good time to do it - even the most popular muds are dead now by the standards of some cookie cutter DIKU muds of 10 years ago.
Nathan
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.orgwrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The only hit "MUD" gets on Wikia now is
http://dragonheart.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Dragonheart, a MUD created in 1995, but the wiki is completely neglected.
I'll go ahead and ask for a Wikia site.
Fred
Nothing exceptional about this, of course: http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh.
http://www.zenofdesign.com/2009/01/06/wikipedia-is-what-it-is/
On Jan 10, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course: http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh.
Gah. What's bothersome here is that it has a Computer Gaming Magazine reference and a quote from Bartle, one of the iconic figures in MUD design. Those are two significant references. But the CGM reference was actually *ignored* in the deletion close because it was unverified.
Yes. Now we're treating print referencing with suspicion and hostility. Fucking brilliant.
-Phil
"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 doesnt absolve one from using ones 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.
Fred
On Jan 10, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course: http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh.
Gah. What's bothersome here is that it has a Computer Gaming Magazine reference and a quote from Bartle, one of the iconic figures in MUD design. Those are two significant references. But the CGM reference was actually *ignored* in the deletion close because it was unverified.
Yes. Now we're treating print referencing with suspicion and hostility. Fucking brilliant.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/10 Fred Bauder fredbaud@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:OTHERSTUFFEXISTShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, 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:AFDhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD. A very small percentage of that, 2-3%, have been listed at deletion reviewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV, and only a handful have been overturned -- and not a single one has been because of "corruption" or bad faithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF.", I get a really bad feeling.
Michel
On Jan 10, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
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:AFDhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD. A very small percentage of that, 2-3%, have been listed at deletion reviewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV, and only a handful have been overturned -- and not a single one has been because of "corruption" or bad faithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF.", I get a really bad feeling.
When our contributors brag about how much content they've removed, we're through the looking glass.
I just created a brand new article on the MUD Threshold. There turn out to be all sorts of blog posts about it from really notable MMOG developers! Fancy that!
And I even avoided reading the old version so it couldn't be tagged as a recreation.
Fun times.
-Phil
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@zog.org wrote:
2009/1/10 Fred Bauder fredbaud@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:OTHERSTUFFEXISTShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, 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:AFDhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD. A very small percentage of that, 2-3%, have been listed at deletion reviewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV, and only a handful have been overturned -- and not a single one has been because of "corruption" or bad faithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF.", I get a really bad feeling.
Michel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 10, 2009, at 1:59 PM, David Goodman 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
Two minutes with google books provides these "hardback" MUD references:
http://tinyurl.com/9z8xgt http://tinyurl.com/7shq2w http://tinyurl.com/a3jf8p http://tinyurl.com/7nxe3y http://tinyurl.com/8ld8ak http://tinyurl.com/9eydrg http://tinyurl.com/835euk
--Noah--
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@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@zog.org wrote:
2009/1/10 Fred Bauder fredbaud@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%3E,
for one; we'll get to deleting those other MUD articles in duetime, 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:AFDhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD. A very small percentage of that, 2-3%, have been listed at deletion reviewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV, and only a handful have been overturned -- and not a single one has been because of "corruption" or bad faithhttp://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.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:27 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@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@zog.org wrote:
2009/1/10 Fred Bauder fredbaud@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%3E,
for one; we'll get to deleting those other MUD articles in duetime, 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:AFDhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD. A very small percentage of that, 2-3%, have been listed at deletion reviewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV, and only a handful have been overturned -- and not a single one has been because of "corruption" or bad faithhttp://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@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Should be an interesting case. I'm sure the ArbCom will be very ready to desysop someone for a close that was upheld when challenged.
Maybe we should instead desysop those who think that "editing" doesn't sometimes mean "cutting", which is counter to every definition of the term there is. Or maybe we could have a discussion over it rather than throwing empty threats.
The explosion of comments from outright reliable sources (Raph Koster and Richard Bartle, even when blogging, are reliable secondary sources) makes this a clear-cut notable article at present. I may recreate, using Bartle and Koster exclusively as two sources.
But yes - the point stands. Contentious AfDs - including ones that got wide attention off of Wikipedia - should be closed by someone with knowledge about the subject, or at least a consult. Go talk to an editor in the area. Hell, go to WikiProject Video Games, ask for a consult.
If you don't know the topic and it's a controversial AfD, don't close it.
-Phil
On Jan 10, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
"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.
Fred
On Jan 10, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course: http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh.
Gah. What's bothersome here is that it has a Computer Gaming Magazine reference and a quote from Bartle, one of the iconic figures in MUD design. Those are two significant references. But the CGM reference was actually *ignored* in the deletion close because it was unverified.
Yes. Now we're treating print referencing with suspicion and hostility. Fucking brilliant.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The explosion of comments from outright reliable sources (Raph Koster and Richard Bartle, even when blogging, are reliable secondary sources) makes this a clear-cut notable article at present. I may recreate, using Bartle and Koster exclusively as two sources.
But yes - the point stands. Contentious AfDs - including ones that got wide attention off of Wikipedia - should be closed by someone with knowledge about the subject, or at least a consult. Go talk to an editor in the area. Hell, go to WikiProject Video Games, ask for a consult.
If you don't know the topic and it's a controversial AfD, don't close it.
-Phil
On Jan 10, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
"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.
Fred
On Jan 10, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course: http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh.
Gah. What's bothersome here is that it has a Computer Gaming Magazine reference and a quote from Bartle, one of the iconic figures in MUD design. Those are two significant references. But the CGM reference was actually *ignored* in the deletion close because it was unverified.
Yes. Now we're treating print referencing with suspicion and hostility. Fucking brilliant.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Blogs do not become reliable sources because someone suddenly wants to write an article on something, and they certainly do not establish notability. Anyone can blog about anything, so that doesn't establish any significance whatsoever.
2009/1/10 toddmallen toddmallen@gmail.com:
Blogs do not become reliable sources because someone suddenly wants to write an article on something, and they certainly do not establish notability. Anyone can blog about anything, so that doesn't establish any significance whatsoever.
Conversely, statements from acknowledged experts do not become unreliable sources because some Turing Test failure goes "O NOEZ BLOG."
- d.
On Jan 10, 2009, at 1:35 PM, toddmallen wrote:
Blogs do not become reliable sources because someone suddenly wants to write an article on something, and they certainly do not establish notability. Anyone can blog about anything, so that doesn't establish any significance whatsoever.
A blog is a medium. Contra McLuhan, the medium is not the message.
Yes, anyone can blog about anything. What is more interesting, however, is what Richard Bartle, one of the most significant figures in MMOG design and commentary, has opted to blog about.
And oh look. He's opted to blog about Threshold.
That does establish significance.
-Phil
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 1:35 PM, toddmallen wrote:
Blogs do not become reliable sources because someone suddenly wants to write an article on something, and they certainly do not establish notability. Anyone can blog about anything, so that doesn't establish any significance whatsoever.
A blog is a medium. Contra McLuhan, the medium is not the message.
Yes, anyone can blog about anything. What is more interesting, however, is what Richard Bartle, one of the most significant figures in MMOG design and commentary, has opted to blog about.
And oh look. He's opted to blog about Threshold.
That does establish significance.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of expertise, then yes, his blogging about it would mean that. Or at least, be a good sign of that.
-Phil
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of expertise, then yes, his blogging about it would mean that. Or at least, be a good sign of that.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not really sure that holds water either. If it were an expert dog trainer blogging about their dog, that still wouldn't really be a reason for an article on that dog.
Fact-checking and publication by someone other than oneself are required for good reason.
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:30 PM, toddmallen wrote:
Not really sure that holds water either. If it were an expert dog trainer blogging about their dog, that still wouldn't really be a reason for an article on that dog.
In that case, it would also fail the "independence" aspect of WP:N. He'd still be a reliable source on the dog - just no longer an independent one for the purposes of WP:N.
On the other hand, if he engaged in detailed and direct discussion of his neighbor's dog, and then some other reliable source also did?
The dog would at least meet the bare minimum of WP:N. Which is, it should be noted, necessary but not sufficient for inclusion.
-Phil
toddmallen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of expertise, then yes, his blogging about it would mean that. Or at least, be a good sign of that.
Not really sure that holds water either. If it were an expert dog trainer blogging about their dog, that still wouldn't really be a reason for an article on that dog.
Fact-checking and publication by someone other than oneself are required for good reason.
Maybe the dog is acknowledged expert in beta testing video games designed for dogs. By limiting electronic transmissions to data that can be heard or seen we show our human bias in this medium. Transmission of olfactory sensations could revolutionize the way that dogs communicate on the internet.
Ec .
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
toddmallen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of expertise, then yes, his blogging about it would mean that. Or at least, be a good sign of that.
Not really sure that holds water either. If it were an expert dog trainer blogging about their dog, that still wouldn't really be a reason for an article on that dog.
Fact-checking and publication by someone other than oneself are required for good reason.
Maybe the dog is acknowledged expert in beta testing video games designed for dogs. By limiting electronic transmissions to data that can be heard or seen we show our human bias in this medium. Transmission of olfactory sensations could revolutionize the way that dogs communicate on the internet.
Ec
The fundamental problem here is one of verifiability. Perhaps the dog is really a dog, but how can we be sure?
On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
- -- gwern
Come on guys, stop with that discussion. The first argument was already invalid.
-- Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 0:40, "Gwern Branwen" gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
toddmallen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of expertise, then yes, his blogging about it would mean that. Or at least, be a good sign of that.
Not really sure that holds water either. If it were an expert dog trainer blogging about their dog, that still wouldn't really be a reason for an article on that dog.
Fact-checking and publication by someone other than oneself are required for good reason.
Maybe the dog is acknowledged expert in beta testing video games designed for dogs. By limiting electronic transmissions to data that can be heard or seen we show our human bias in this medium. Transmission of olfactory sensations could revolutionize the way that dogs communicate on the internet.
Ec
The fundamental problem here is one of verifiability. Perhaps the dog is really a dog, but how can we be sure?
On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
gwern -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAklpakEACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oKGLgCfetcl6kIHm1v6DU66ZVJJr98J w5oAn3dCuWiNOKoVFlcSpmiHAJ/1/Q5b =oB2/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/10 toddmallen toddmallen@gmail.com:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
This is the "hairdresser" argument and it's intrinsically inane.
That you are being deliberately dense is not a reason to play up to you.
- d.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 toddmallen toddmallen@gmail.com:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
This is the "hairdresser" argument and it's intrinsically inane.
That you are being deliberately dense is not a reason to play up to you.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That you characterize those who disagree with you as "deliberately dense" is no more a reason to listen to you. Do you actually have an argument?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, toddmallen wrote:
Yes, anyone can blog about anything. What is more interesting, however, is what Richard Bartle, one of the most significant figures in MMOG design and commentary, has opted to blog about.
And oh look. He's opted to blog about Threshold.
That does establish significance.
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
If the world's #1 expert about dogs decided to blog about the significance of his dog, I'd think we should at least consider using it.
Blogs do not become reliable sources because someone suddenly wants to write an article on something, and they certainly do not establish notability. Anyone can blog about anything, so that doesn't establish any significance whatsoever.
Blogs by recognized experts are reliable sources.
Fred
Inform yourself of who the blogger is before making such statements.
-- Alvaro
On 10-01-2009, at 15:35, toddmallen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner@gmail.com
wrote: The explosion of comments from outright reliable sources (Raph Koster and Richard Bartle, even when blogging, are reliable secondary sources) makes this a clear-cut notable article at present. I may recreate, using Bartle and Koster exclusively as two sources.
But yes - the point stands. Contentious AfDs - including ones that got wide attention off of Wikipedia - should be closed by someone with knowledge about the subject, or at least a consult. Go talk to an editor in the area. Hell, go to WikiProject Video Games, ask for a consult.
If you don't know the topic and it's a controversial AfD, don't close it.
-Phil
On Jan 10, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
"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.
Fred
On Jan 10, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course: http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh.
Gah. What's bothersome here is that it has a Computer Gaming Magazine reference and a quote from Bartle, one of the iconic figures in MUD design. Those are two significant references. But the CGM reference was actually *ignored* in the deletion close because it was unverified.
Yes. Now we're treating print referencing with suspicion and hostility. Fucking brilliant.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Blogs do not become reliable sources because someone suddenly wants to write an article on something, and they certainly do not establish notability. Anyone can blog about anything, so that doesn't establish any significance whatsoever.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hello, When it became clear that my beloved MUD of many years would be taken down, I contacted everyone I knew, got every bit of original source material, the source code etc... and put it on a wiki on SourceForge.
http://rockserv.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Of course, I forgot to pass-protect the wiki and I fear the spammers have gotten the best of it. But still, it's all there.
I can't say that any of that material belongs on Wikipedia. Probably not even a mention.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.orgwrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It is not notable, just one of the thousands of failed, or infrequently used MUDs on the web. Threshold is quite different. It has, and had, a nice player base and notable characteristics.
http://blog.dillfrog.com/?p=46
Fred
Hello, When it became clear that my beloved MUD of many years would be taken down, I contacted everyone I knew, got every bit of original source material, the source code etc... and put it on a wiki on SourceForge.
http://rockserv.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Of course, I forgot to pass-protect the wiki and I fear the spammers have gotten the best of it. But still, it's all there.
I can't say that any of that material belongs on Wikipedia. Probably not even a mention.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.orgwrote:
Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-o...
Sigh. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- You have successfully failed! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l