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.